Posts Tagged ‘Arun Jaitley’
The mother-son duo may now consider leasing out State Congress units to the highest bidders for specified periods, with the understandable clauses incorporated in the agreement, such as, no criticism, in any form, of mother and son will be permitted, full weightage will be given to the advice of the ‘controlling authority’ (meaning high command in Delhi) in the selection of candidates for Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha, certain quotas will be fixed for the high command in the selection of candidates for Assemblies, and so on. This will bring, on a regular basis, good amounts of funds to the coffers in AICC. More importantly, it will check waywardness presently witnessed in State Congress units all over the country. In any case, the State party bosses are running the organisation as if it has been leased out to them with the minus point that others in the State do not accept it.
It’s now ages that one has seen a State unit of the grand old party working in cohesion anywhere in the country, or the high command taking any firm steps to ensure at least a semblance of unity in the party. Not infrequently, the high command has shown utter unconcern for the workings in the State units. Take, for instance, the matter of Leader of Opposition in the Madhya Pradesh Assembly. The rules prescribe that a meeting of the party MLAs will be convened specifically for the election of the Leader. A formal resolution will be adopted for the purpose. Election may be unanimously or by a majority vote. The copy of the resolution will be communicated to the Speaker of the Assembly in a prescribed manner. The Speaker announces his approval in the Assembly. Then only he/she becomes Leader of Opposition.
In Madhya Pradesh, an observer of AICC or the AICC general secretary in charge of Madhya Pradesh gets signatures of party MLAs on a single-line resolution authorising Sonia Gandhi to name the Leader. The general secretary in-charge then gets the signature of Sonia Gandhi and a copy of that is sent to the Speaker somehow and the Speaker promptly gives his approval. This happened in the last Assembly when Ajay Singh (Rahul Bhaiya) was the ‘Leader of Opposition’ and this happened in the present Assembly when Satyadev Katare is the ‘Leader of Opposition’. On both the occasions, even after getting Sonia Gandhi’s approval, it was not felt necessary to convene a meeting of MLAs to fulfil the formality of adopting the required resolution. If the Speaker did not point out the irregularities in election of the Leader and in communication to the Speaker, it was because it suited the ruling BJP.
The MLAs do not give due regard to the Leader because they feel they were not directly involved even in the so-called election, with the result that the Leader keeps gets his substantial perks as Leader of Opposition, hobnobs with the ruling bosses who are always eager to please him and his small coterie. MLAs work almost independently in the Assembly, sometimes even working at cross purposes. Occasionally meetings of Legislature Party are convened to discuss ‘party strategy’ in the House but only rarely a concerted effort of the party was seen to corner the government.
In Punjab, Captain Amarinder Singh has been made the PCC chief, not for his life-long dedication to the Congress or that he enjoys support and confidence of all party activists. He has been hopping between Congress and Shiromani Akali Dal and had been a votary of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution seeking ultimately a separate Khalistan and later was signatory to the succession document known as Amritsar Declaration after the 1984 storming of the Golden Temple to flush out the Bhindrawale gang of terrorists. A scion of the powerful erstwhile kingdom of Patiala, he is a dashing politician, has money and knows how to use that. But he would not allow other party chiefs to function and when he is the party chief he wants total loyalty like a former Maharaj of Patiala which all Congress leaders cannot do. Those who have been removed from positions because of him feel particularly piqued at his style of functioning.
The Captain’s clout
His clout can be gauged from the facts that the Congress party lost Assembly elections twice under his stewardship, held, in an interview to The Indian Express, Rahul Gandhi’s ‘divisive policies’ within the party for the debacle of the Congress in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections. The paper quoted him as having said, ‘I told him pre-2012 that ‘You will divide each village, which will have its own Youth Congress, and that means it will get divided right to the top; even parents take sides in such a situation, we will have problem’. He didn’t listen and that is exactly what happened’.
Anyone else, if he had said such things about Rahul Gandhi, would have been shown his place. But not the Captain. He has been made the PCC chief to run not the Congress party but his own faction as he is doing now on the eve of the Assembly elections.
With a similar mindset, Digvijaya Singh, too, does not allow anyone to run the party smoothly. When Arun Yadav was made PCC chief he started his job with apparent enthusiasm. At the first meeting of PCC, Jagdish Yadav, PCC secretary and a friend of Arun Yadav, described as inauspicious the name of Digvijaya Singh. He was promptly suspended, which gave a clear message to the party workers that new PCC chief Arun Yadav would not tolerate ‘indiscipline’ by any party leader or worker, even though he may be his personal fried. However, before the day was out, Digvijaya Singh called Arun Yadav (and also made it public) that suspension of Jagdish Yadav should be revoked as he (Jagdish Yadav) was a dedicated Congressman. Many Congressmen were surprised to know Digvijaya Singh’s latest views about Jagdish Yadav because he was never known to have liked Jagdish Yadav or any Yadav leader for that matter. Thus snubbed publicly even for working in the party interest, Arun Yadav lost whatever zeal he had and started on the safe path of running his own faction in the party and, in the process, inviting unsavoury allegations. The party high command was not concerned.
When Suresh Pachauri was PCC chief in Madhya Pradesh, (the late) Jamuna Devi was the Leader of Opposition. A rival Congress leader of Jamuna Devi from her Dhar district brought 200 persons to Bhopal. They held a demonstration against Jamuna Devi and presented a memorandum to Pachauri seeking removal of Jamuna Devi. Pachauri entertained them properly, gladly accepted the memorandum and assured them that he would take it to the Congress president. Irrespective of whether he took it to the Congress president, the party high command never tried to stem the rot. The two continued in their separate ways, often working against each other. However, Jamuna Devi never betrayed the party interests. Pachauri did with impunity.
Uttarakhand and Assam are recent history. The Congress high command never tried to stem the rot which had long been going on in the two States. If the Congress government was saved in Uttarakhand, it was because of judicial intervention for which Arun Jaitley (read Modi government) is seething with anger and must be thinking of some ways to show the Judiciary its place. Assam has slipped away from the hands of Congress. Now it fears the crisis of existence in the entire North-East as well as in the South Indian States where high command has never stepped in to bring the warring groups within the party together.
The judges today are competing with politicians and bureaucrats in excelling in corruption. As the judiciary is the last resort of the aggrieved persons fighting against injustice, the corruption in the judiciary can harm the society much more than corrupt politicians and bureaucrats.
Then Chief Justice of India (CJI) R C Lahoti had suggested over a decade ago “complete overhaul of the judicial system”. He said at a workshop in Bhopal that numerous commissions and committees had in the past five decades or so been set up on various issues but no commission or even a high-powered committee had been set up to review the judicial system and recommend changes suited to the Indian conditions. The workshop was organised by the Madhya Pradesh government.
A year later Justice B K Roy, as he was relinquishing his charge as Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, lamented in an interview to a newspaper that he saw “some Judges trying to get selective cases listed before their Benches despite the fact that the cases did not fall within the purview of the roster assigned to them. Even after I changed the roster, many Judges kept files relating to such cases with themselves and did not return them. Finally, I had to order the Bench Secretaries to return the files so that the cases could be listed before appropriate Benches,”
Hansraj Bhardwaj, one of the great jugglers the Congress party has presented to the nation, was first inducted by P V Narasimha Rao into his Council of Ministers as Minister of State (Independent charge) for Law, Justice and Company Affairs. A meeting of law ministers of the States was convened by Bhardwaj at Bangalore in October 1992 — within a few months of his taking over — where a blueprint for legal reforms was prepared. This was followed by another meeting of law ministers and law secretaries in Panaji in Goa in April 1993, which was followed by another meeting at Pachmarhi a month later, and so on and so on. The Congress government went out in 1996 but the implementation stage for even the decisions taken at the first meeting never came. How he wasted the nation’s wealth on the salary and perks of the Union Cabinet Minister of Law and Justice (which he had become) in the first Manmohan Singh government (2004-2009) is another story.
In Manmohan Singh’s second term, Bhardwaj was replaced by Veerappa Moily. Jugglery is not in the temperament of Moily. He is rather a silent non-performer. On taking charge of the Law Ministry, Moily promised “expeditious judicial reforms”. He did not resort to gimmicks like those of his predecessor but did nothing in the field. In the meanwhile, the country heard empty noises of Arun Jaitley as Law Minister in Atal Behari Vajpayee’s NDA government.
While the Executive dilly-dallied on judicial reforms, the Hon’ble members of the higher judiciary literally held the people to ransom. A Judge of a High Court was among the numerous petitioners challenging the validity of the Land Ceiling Act of the State and to obtain stay against the operation of the Act; the Judge and his family members owned the land much beyond the prescribed ceiling. The matter eventually went to the Supreme Court which upheld the Constitutional validity of the Act. Consequently, the stay orders obtained by all the petitioners were vacated barring the one issued in favour of the Judge who had by then become the Chief Justice of the High Court. After he was elevated to the Supreme Court, he was known to have acquired lands in another State also.
Corruption in judiciary was virtually given legitimacy by a judgement of the apex court — by a three-member bench presided over by then CJI K G Balakrishnan. An Additional District and Sessions Judge of Uttar Pradesh was charged with accepting illegal gratification for granting bail. An inquiry was held by the vigilance wing of the Allahabad High Court and it came to light that the respective courts had rejected bail applications of the accused twice on merits. It was alleged that the Additional Judge had granted bail on the third application in utter disregard of judicial norms and on insufficient grounds and it appeared to be based on extraneous considerations. The full court of the Allahabad High Court imposed a punishment of withholding two annual increments of the judicial officer with cumulative effect and subsequently he was reduced to a lower rank. His writ petition challenging the punishment was dismissed by the High Court. He then went in appeal to the Supreme Court.
What the three-judge bench of the apex court comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta and Justice D K Jain ruled was incredible, to say the least. It said: “this court on several occasions has disapproved of the practice of initiation of disciplinary proceedings against officers of the subordinate judiciary merely because the judgements/orders passed by them are wrong. The appellate and revisional courts have been established and given powers to set aside such orders. The higher courts after hearing the appeal may modify or set aside erroneous judgements of the lower courts. While taking disciplinary action based on judicial orders, High Courts must take extra care or caution.” The bench set aside the Allahabad High Court judgement and directed that the appellant be immediately posted to the cadre of district judge and paid all monetary benefits due to him.