Wednesday, April 29, 2015

The political alliance of the Executive and Judiciary

A lot of things annoys us about India. The close nexus between the politicians in power and the court systems are one such. I just read a news, saying the Mumbai high court has ruled that the decision by the Maharashtra government to ban beef is valid. I am pretty sure, the litigation will be moved to higher courts and would be struck down.

Bottom line, it makes no sense for the government to dictate what its citizens have to eat. It would be individual liberty. If there is a market for it - so be it. Passing a legislation to ban a particular kind of meat doesn't sound a rational decision. The government has no role to play in this, with sufficient other things to do, on its plate. Would it ban a particular vegetable next? How to enforce that? The police in the vicinity should go around the city to make sure - there is no one out there slaughtering cows? And make sure, the place that slaughters goats is not slaughtering cows ? Can this be done daily, 24 x 7 for the rest of the foreseeable future? Cops have to go around looking for beef-eaters?  There are many states in our country that sells alcohol. Lately we don't hear bans on them.

This is a classic example of government trying to do needless things. Why do they pass legislation like this, if it cannot be enforced. This is to please a section of the party or its followers. Just that. In reality - nothing would change. There will definitely be a black market for beef.  Local heavy weights and unlawful but powerful big-shots make a dishonest living of this. Only in our country people make a 30-40 year career doing "unlawful" petty stuffs. The mere existence of insane laws help them. The corrupt policemen and government officials exploit the situation.

Law - is a serious doctrine that people of a country or a region should abide by. They are gospel like. Making such "unenforceable" laws make the rest of the laws look bad too. Why would you abide by some of it and not abide by some of it. There is no "weightage" of any kind around them. They all should be "equally enforced" in real world.

When a particular party is in power, the courts and the government seem to be in the same page. Cases against ruling party men suddenly go cold. There is no word of it in the media. But cases against its political rivals speed up. We read this in newspapers daily. This is very confusing. We were all taught in schools, that judiciary and executive are two separate pillars in democracy. In reality, both the government and the courts are in same line at any given time. An independent and authoritative court system is what India needs. If they are hand-in-glove with the current government - the reason they exists do not hold good. What is funny - people just cope with it. They are willing to wait for another five years, to see the other side. When the congress is in power, lot of BJP MPs/MLAs are dealing with courts. When the BJP comes to power, all congress leaders are involved in fighting cases against them. Naveen Jindal is charge sheeted for his role in obtaining coal blocks in Jharkhand. Why is he being charge sheeted now? Why not when Manmohan Singh was the Prime minister? Where were the courts then? We don't hear an explanation about that ever.

This is very obvious in the southern state of Tamil Nadu. The DMK and the AIADMK have rotated being in power alternatively for 25-years. As soon as the DMK comes to power - all cases against AIADMK politicians come to the forefront. Media pages are filled with this entertainment. When the AIADMK is voted to power after 5-years, you don't hear about those cases anymore. Instead it will be about the court cases against the DMK politicians. Media pages are filled with this entertainment now. All along this entertainment creates a false feeling among the people that - the judiciary is working and doing its job. But it isn't for anyone - who can think!

Foisting cases on political rivals after coming to power - is a ritual in our country. It makes sense, court cases are initiated when a new government comes to power. However what doesn't make sense is, when these people come back to power again - the cases go cold from there. The notion of independent judiciary is just imaginative. Instead of trying to fix the rule book better - it would be wise to throw it out and write a small rule book - that is clear and unambiguous. There has to be clear distinction between bailable and non-bailable offences. Right now - everything is at the discretion of the judge. Lets get that word out from the rule book. Some people are stuck in jail for a murder, but some are out there on bail for the same kind of offense. It just doesn't add up.
Make the rule book simple - so that the common man can understand. Do not make it such that only the lawyers can interpret.

No comments:

Post a Comment