Revving up the judicial juggernaut

Recently, the Supreme Court refused to fast-track criminal cases against Members of Parliament, saying the manpower in trial courts and infrastructure was inadequate. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had, on June 11, sought to expedite trials of pending cases against MPs within a year. But that could have meant pushing other cases back in the queue. As the apex court rightly observed, there are other categories where criminal trials need to be expedited, such as women and senior citizens.

The Supreme Court needs to make a commitment on the need to deliver time-bound justice. But is that possible?

Analysis of data

To understand this, I did some number crunching, with the objective of trying to estimate the number of judges required for deliverance of justice on time. I used the Supreme Court data for 12 quarters, from July 2009 to June 2012.

I made note of new cases instituted in each quarter and disposed and pending cases in the Supreme Court, High Courts and district and subordinate courts. I divided the number of cases disposed per quarter to arrive at the figure of average monthly disposal of cases. Then I divided the number of pending cases with this figure to estimate monthly pendency.

For each quarter, I realised, no case appeared in backlog for more than 36 months. And yet, many people have had cases continuing for over 10 years because of no adherence to chronologically clear cases.

The average pendency for the Supreme Court, High Courts and district and subordinate courts for the period July 2009 to June 2012 comes to 9 months, 30 months, and 19 months respectively.

The legal profession is aghast when one talks about measuring such numbers, on the ground that the differences in cases is vast. Many in the legal fraternity say one cannot apply mathematical analysis to understand this. However, over a large number of courts and cases, the large variations due to different cases would even out and can be used to compare or find possible solutions.

Besides, the evaluation is based on 12 quarters over three years, and appears to show some consistency. This data appears to show some consistency as the graphs show.

This appears to indicate that if the principle of ‘first in, first out’ (FIFO) could be strictly followed, this may be the time required to decide a case in a court.

This would not be feasible completely, but there can be no justification for many cases taking more than double the average time in the courts. Courts should lay down a discipline that almost no case should be allowed to languish for more than double the average time taken for disposals. At present, the listing of cases is being done by the judges, and no human being can really do this exercise rationally, given the mass of data. It would be sensible to devise a fair criterion and incorporate this in computer software, which would list the cases and also give the dates for adjournments based on a rational basis. This would result in removing much of the arbitrariness and also reduce the power of some lawyers to hasten or delay cases as per their will. If done, the maximum time the three courts would take to decide on a case would be 18 months, 60 months, and 38 months. The average vacancies in the three levels are 15 per cent for the Supreme Court, 30 per cent for the High Courts and over 20 per cent for the district and subordinate courts.

Filling in vacancies

When citizens are suffering acutely because of the huge delays in the judicial system, there can be no justification for such high levels of sanctioned positions being vacant. The dates of retirement of judges are known in advance and hence the vacancies are largely because of neglect. After filling the vacancies, if courts stick to their avowed judgments to allow adjournments rarely, it should certainly be possible to increase the disposals by at least 20 per cent. Basically, if courts follow the principle of FIFO, the judiciary could deliver in a reasonable time.

That is why courts must accept the discipline that over 95 per cent of the cases will be settled in less than double the average pendency. Then, reasonable equity could be provided to citizens and Article 14 actualised in courts. The listing of cases should be done by a computer programme, with judges having the discretion to override it in only 5 per cent of cases.

Also, vacancies in the sanctioned strength of judges should be less than 5 per cent. Adjournments should be rare, and the maximum number ought to be fixed by a computer. A calculation can be done to see the number of judges required to bring the average pendency in all courts to less than one year. Most probably, an increase of about 20 per cent judges in High Courts and lower judiciary could bring down the average pendency to less than a year. The number of disposals per judge and per court along with data of pending cases, giving details of the periods since institution, should be displayed by the courts on their websites.

That would be meaningful judicial accountability.

India ranked 5th amongst top wind power producers: Report

India ranked fifth amongst top ten wind power producers in the world by adding 1,700 MW capacity in 2013, a report said.

"China was the leading wind power producer by adding 16,100 MW capacity in 2013, followed by USA, Germany and Spain," Renewables 2014 Global Status Report said.

By the end of 2013, China, the US, Brazil, Canada and Germany remained the top countries for total installed renewable power capacity, the report said.

According to the report, over the past few years the levelised costs of electricity generation from onshore wind and particularly solar PV (photo-voltaic) have fallen sharply which has resulted in an increase in wind and solar power projects being built without public financial support.

In terms of annual investment in the wind energy sector and production, China ranked number one followed by Germany, UK, India and Canada.

Worldwide more than 35,000 MW wind power capacity was added taking the total number to 3,18,000 MW in 2013 to which India contributed 1,700 MW.

"The wind industry continued to be challenged by downward pressure on prices, increased competition among turbine manufacturers, decline in key markets among other reasons," it added.

About 40,000 MW of new hydro power capacity was commissioned in 2013 increasing the total global capacity by 4 per cent to approximately 1,000,000 MW.

By far the most capacity was commissioned in China (29,000 MW), with significant capacity also added in Turkey, Brazil, Vietnam, India and Russia.

India, which added more than 4,000 MW renewable capacity in 2013 also plans to increase the capacity to 55,000 MW by 2017 from the current level of around 30,000 MW.

UK-PCS CSAT SYLLABUS

A fatally flawed commission,JAC

The National Judicial Appointments Commission will destroy the independence of the judiciary. The composition of its panel will inevitably lead to serious political manipulation 

Both Houses of Parliament almost unanimously passed, and with inexplicable haste, two laws that seek to abolish the collegium system and replace it with a National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). There was very little debate and it was clear that Members of Parliament were determined to cut the Supreme Court to size. One would have expected that such momentous changes would have been referred to a select committee to consider suggestions and objections of eminent lawyers and various Bar Associations. The Constitution (99th Amendment) Bill, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointment Commission Act, 2014 are both seriously flawed and contrary to elementary principles of constitutional law. Both laws will also be wholly unworkable in practice. The net result is that a flawed but workable collegium system will now be replaced by an even more flawed and wholly unworkable Commission system.

Unworkable in practice

The 99th amendment to the Constitution inserts three new Articles — 124A, 124B, and 124C — and also amends several other Articles under the ostensible objective of providing a “meaningful role to the judiciary, executive and eminent persons to present their viewpoints and make the participants accountable while also introducing transparency in the selection.” But the amendments actually contain nothing to ensure either accountability or transparency.

The fatal flaw is the failure to give supremacy to the views of the judges in the selection process. Under Article 124A, the NJAC has six members of whom three are judges — the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and two seniormost judges. The remaining three are the Union Law Minister and two “eminent persons” who are to be appointed by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the CJI. In the Madras Bar Association case, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that a selection committee to select members for the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) must have an equal number of judges and civil servants (Secretaries) with a casting vote to the nominee of the CJI who is the chairperson of that committee. If the views of the judges have to prevail in selecting members to a Tribunal, it is impermissible that they will not prevail while appointing Supreme Court and High Court judges. The National Judicial Commission that was suggested by the Venkatachaliah Committee was a five-member body consisting of three seniormost Supreme Court judges, the Union Minister and one eminent person.

The constitutional amendments will also be unworkable in practice. What happens if there is a deadlock? Is it necessary that all the six members must be present at every meeting? Is there any quorum? What happens if one member absents himself? What happens if the veto power is misused to appoint someone undesirable? How are the regulations to be framed?

Article 124C is most sinister and enables Parliament to empower the commission to make regulations for selecting judges and for “other matters.” Thus, constitutional provisions and safeguards can easily be thwarted by regulations framed by the commission.

Eminent persons

About 70 Acts prescribe the appointment of “eminent persons” and 65 of them require specialised knowledge. For example, the eminent person under the Biodiversity Act has to be eminent in the field of conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. Shockingly, there is no requirement that the eminent persons on the commission should have any knowledge of law.

This small Act, with just 14 sections, effectively creates a full-time commission with its own staff and regulations. The commission will now totally control the appointment of Supreme Court and High Court judges, Chief Justices of High Courts, the transfer of judges and even the continuance of retired High Court judges under Article 224A.

The NJAC Act is clearly unconstitutional. While Article 124(3) of the Constitution prescribes the minimum requirement of a person to be eligible to be appointed as a Supreme Court judge, Section 5(2) of the NJAC Act, 2014 can now prescribe “any other criteria of suitability as may be prescribed by the regulations.” Similarly, additional criteria not mentioned in the Constitution can be added for High Court judges. We now have an absurd situation where the eligibility of Supreme Court and High Court judges will be determined not just by the Constitution but by “regulations” of the Commission.

For the appointment of High Court judges, the NJAC Act, 2014 also requires the views of the Governor and Chief Minister to be given in writing and “as prescribed by the regulations.” But the Act is silent as to what happens if the Governor or Chief Minister or both object. It is now mandatory that eminent advocates are consulted while appointing High Court judges. Who are the “eminent advocates”? Well, that will also be prescribed by the regulations.

The collegium system

The 20-year-old collegium system has been severely criticised even by Supreme Court judges who were members of the collegium. The main allegation is that there is a total lack of transparency. Members of the Supreme Court collegium have also been accused of exploiting their power to appoint their close relatives or particular lawyers as High Court judges. Similarly, personal animosity has resulted in the delay or denial of appointments to the Supreme Court.

Undoubtedly, the collegium system has its failings. But we cannot forget the manipulation and humiliation of the judiciary at the hands of political leaders that eventually led to the collegium system. The controversial Justice Markandey Katju refused to give in to political pressure and it was the collegium system and a public interest litigation that led to the appointment of 17 competent judges to the Madras High Court.

If the main objection to the collegium system is lack of transparency, the better and simpler solution is to ensure more transparency and greater objectivity so that the basis of selection is made known to the public. One does not destroy the building if the plumbing is faulty. Indeed, it will make far more sense to have the NJAC consist of the three senior-most Supreme Court judges, two retired Supreme Court judges and two retired Chief Justices of High Courts.

In the end, the NJAC will destroy the independence of the judiciary. The involvement of the Law Minister, the leader of the Opposition, the Governors and Chief Ministers in the appointment of High Court judges will inevitably lead to serious political manipulation. In 1973, Indira Gandhi struck a major blow to judicial independence by the shameful supersession of judges. Forty years later, Parliament has thoughtlessly created a Commission that the nation will deeply regret. For the judiciary at least, “acche din” may soon be over.

A river runs through it

The Indian Meteorological Department warned of poor rains this year, which was ominous for the country as most of its agriculture is dependent on the monsoon rains. As the spectre of drought loomed, the question that comes to mind is: why have we failed to implement a national water grid plan, even after years of detailed investigation and study for the proposed Indian river linking (IRL) project? The proposal had envisaged diverting the surplus waters of the Brahmaputra to the water-deficient Cauvery and beyond, through 30 links that would bring additional irrigation to 35 million hectares, generate power and supply drinking water to drought-prone areas.

The proposal for the mega IRL project is gathering dust because it got mired in the complexities of hydropolitics among the states, kept alive by corrupt politicians, as well as activists and academics masquerading as the guardians of the environment. Water-rich states were not willing to share their surplus with water-deficit states, arguing that they did not have any water to spare, given their future plans. In this fight between the states, the Union government remained a helpless spectator, pleading that water was a state subject under the Constitution. Even though Entry 56 of List 1 of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution empowers the Centre to regulate interstate rivers, it did not use these powers. The Centre’s inaction meant that project work did not progress as scheduled, since more than 80 per cent of the country’s annual utilisable water resources is carried by interstate rivers.

The annual occurrence of  floods and droughts proved to be a boon for corrupt officials and politicians as they could reap illegal benefits from the relief doled out. So they remained opposed to a long-term plan like the IRL project. At the same time, a motley group of activists and academics interested in remaining in the limelight were busy spreading misinformation about the project, raising the bogey of environmental degradation.

Misrepresenting ground realities, they offered textbook solutions as alternatives to the river linking project.

They lacked the honesty to appreciate the evidence from existing river linking projects that contradicted their ideological fantasies. According to these groups, any river should be left in its pristine condition to protect its ecology and biodiversity all the way up to the sea. According to them, major dams like Bhakra had brought only disaster to the country — the eco-friendly inundation canals and village tanks of the past could meet all the food requirements then and they would be adequate even now.

The project has also been criticised by the prophets of doom, who point out that its canal system would become an open sewer spreading across the length and breath of the country. Ever critical ofdevelopmental efforts, these cynics had earlier condemned the Golden Quadrilateral project for national highways as a network of conveyor belts for noxious emissions.

These all-knowing experts appear to be ignorant of the facts recorded in the district gazetteers, about the famines that would occur before dams like Bhakra were constructed. They are also afflicted by bouts of amnesia about the massive water transfers, implemented through water trains, to drought affected areas in the recent past, when the traditional tanks had dried up and the “small is beautiful” ideology had failed.

Infrastructure transferring water from surplus to deficit areas was constructed in the past and is still serving without causing environmental disaster — for example, the Western Yamuna Canal and the Kurnool-Kadapa Canal. If our forefathers had not taken timely action to harness the water resources by constructing dams and canal systems, and left the rivers in their pristine condition, by now, we would have been begging for food to meet the needs of our growing millions.

Since water has been made a political issue, none of the water-rich states will accept that it has a surplus. A change in this attitude can be brought about if the states can be convinced of the benefits of being able to spare water. If these states could be compensated for the water they can spare as surplus, they would certainly agree to the project, as they could use the compensation to meet the needs of their future plans. The quantum of compensation could be decided on the basis of agreed criteria. As both the donor and the recipient state would benefit from this provision, it would  be a win-win situation for all, fostering a water-saving culture among the states.

We have lost decades in implementing the IRL project. Too much analysis has paralysed us into inaction. Future generations will not pardon us for this inaction

67 years young,revisiting india

Soon after India got freedom, we made a new beginning. We chose democracy as the way forward. New  institutions were created and nurtured — Parliament, the Election Commission, the Supreme Court, the Planning Commission and others. The country has indeed made phenomenal progress. It has become a major military, industrial and economic power, an IT superpower and a space giant eyeing the moon and Mars. As I write this article on the eve of Independence Day, I have great expectations that the prime minister’s address will touch upon some of the following issues.

India is now the 10th largest economy by GDP and the third largest economy by purchasing power parity. We have the sixth largest number of billionaires. But we also have the largest disparities between the haves and have-nots. After all, we take pride in being a country of diversities!

We are ranked 135th in the human development index (out of 187 countries). One in every three Indians is below the poverty line.

One in every four is still illiterate. We still have high infant and maternal mortality rates — far worse than even Sri Lanka. More than half the population is malnourished. The rate of unemployment is so high that it contributes to disgruntlement, frustration and even criminalisation among the youth. It could become a breeding ground for disruptive forces of various hues. Drug abuse in some states has reached alarming proportions. The education system has let the country down, producing millions of unemployables. Ironically, there is no dearth of policies, programmes and funds to deal with these issues. Massive corruption is preventing the percolation of the benefits.

While many old problems persist, we also have new challenges and opportunities. We are a country of young people. More than 70 per cent of Indians are below 35. They have new aspirations. Are we equipping them to meet these aspirations? Let there be an employment mission to coordinate all the relevant programmes. Nearly 250 million of the young people are adolescents, who have their peculiar problems. They are no longer children but not yet adults. They worry about what is happening to them physically and emotionally. Their curiosity and experimentation make them vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. This is the time to give them life-skill education.

Population issues have gone off the political radar altogether. As a result, India’s population will overtake China’s by 2028. The department of family welfare was quietly abolished a decade ago. One factor contributing to the population explosion is child marriage. One in every three marriages in India is illegal, involving parties below the legal age for marriage. Yet not a whimper is heard. Early marriage leads to early pregnancy, which creates health complications for adolescent girls not physically or mentally equippedto deal with it. We should adopt an integrated adolescent development programme (and not just for health) and implement it in mission mode.

Crime and violence against women is a major issue, one that is getting uglier every day. A large number of assault cases take place when rural and slum women go to answer the call of nature, usually at dusk or at dawn. That is when they are most vulnerable to predators on the prowl. Where is freedom for women?

India has the dubious distinction of being a country with the highest number of open defecators — 60 per cent of the population. In his election campaign, Narendra Modi rightly flagged women’s toilets as a high priority issue. It is hoped that his vision will be translated into action soon. But why leave it to the government alone? The corporate sector should assign it top priority while meeting its CSR obligations. If the entire country takes it up on a war footing and resolves to end this national shame within the timeframe of a year or two, it can be done. Synergy has great strength.

The December 16 gangrape shocked the conscience of the nation. In a knee-jerk reaction, we came up with a law that may not necessarily strike at the root of the problem. Nobody uttered a word about society’s gender attitudes.  No solutions were offered to educate the youth and inculcate in them the right values. The result is that we still see the shame being repeated with sickening regularity. An attitude change is more important than any law. It cannot be left to the government alone. Society as a whole must take responsibility. Do we look critically at the  gender attitudes of our sons? A national gender education drive must be considered.

Incidentally, we rank 132 on the gender development index and 127 on the gender inequality index.

Another threat to freedom and development percolating to all sections of society is social disharmony and unrest. It’s an irony that elections have become the root cause of corruption as well as of communal and caste polarisations, the three curses of our society that constantly pull the country back. Rooting out these problems is imperative. All institutions of freedom and democracy must unite to ensure that they are buried forever.

The social polarisation that is rearing its ugly head can do unfathomable damage. The absence of

intermixing creates ignorance about the “other” which breeds a vicious circle of fear, hate and aggression. Growing up in an atmosphere of hate and fear is destructive for children’s psyche. Mental pollution is the worst pollution.

Infighting weakens the nation. Peace and harmony are the prerequisites for development.

Nothing should be done to hamper the realisation of the PM’s slogan, “sab ka saath, sab ka vikaas”, a very inclusive vision that has received global acclaim. Pluralism is one of India’s core strengths, its great USP. It should be strengthened and not weakened.

A government with a strong majority should be an opportunity to strengthen all institutions of democracy. The sanctityof the constitutional wisdom of separation of powers must be respected. At the same time, all constitutional institutions themselves have the duty not to allow the erosion of their moral authority, which seems to be under stress.

This is India’s defining moment. I hope we choose the right course. That would be the best tribute to those who died for our freedom

Indo-Nepal Combined Exercise

In the series of ongoing military co-operation with Nepal, Indo-Nepal Combined Training Exercise, Surya Kiran-VII, will be conducted from 18 to 31 Aug 2014.



The combined training will be carried out in the mountain terrain of Pithoragarh in the Northern Himalayas at an altitude of 5000-6000 feet under the aegis of GARUD DIVISION.



Based on an agreement during the 7th Indo-Nepal Bilateral Consultative Group on security, the two countries commenced combined training at Platoon Level in 2011, enhanced to Company Level in 2012 and currently stands upgraded to Battalion Level. This will be the Second Battalion Level Combined Exercise and approximately 300 personnel including Officers and JCOs from both the armies will participate in the two weeks long combined exercise.



The aim of the exercise will be to hone Sub Unit level tactics and develop interoperability between Indian Army and Nepalese Army in Jungle Warfare, Counter Terrorism Operations in Mountainous Terrain, as also to provide working knowledge of Disaster Management to include Pandemic/ Epidemic diseases control and Aviation aspects.



The Joint Training Exercise will commence from 18 Aug 2014. Senior Army officials of Indian Army and Nepalese Army are expected to attend the two week long exercise and they will also interact with the members of the contingents.



This combined training, mutual interaction and sharing of experience amongst both the countries would not only further the strategic cooperation between both the armies but also aid in strengthening cultural & historical ties.