Confrontation? What Confrontation?

Transcript of BBC Hindi special programme, Aapki Baat BBC Ke Saath with thelaw minister H.R. Bhardwaj on why is the UPA government consistently on  apath of confrontation with judiciary and other constitutional bodies of thecountry

Nagendar Sharma : Why are we increasingly getting this felling that Parliamentwants a confrontation with Judiciary? Take the voteof confidence in Jharkhand, dissolution of Bihar assembly, expulsion of taintedMPs and now the fresh episode of office of profit. 

H.R. Bhardwaj : If at all there is any impression of confrontation, it istotally unfounded. In my view, the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary – allare indispensable pillars of the country’s constitutional democracy, and allof them are discharging their duties within their limits without interfering ineach other’s work. None of the above mentioned examples by you give any suchimpression. If a citizen of the country feels that any decision is wrong,he has a complete right of challenging it, and the country’s constitution saysremedy can be sought in the court of law. You said confrontation, on thecontrary I say it is a healthy sign for democracy if the decisions are subjectedto scrutiny. If any particular matter is brought to the notice of the court, itwould listen to it and decide accordingly, where is the question ofconfrontation? Let us be clear that laws would be enacted by Parliament andwould be interpreted by the courts, there should be no doubt regarding this wellset principle. I am also clearly saying that the legislature has never interfered in judiciary’s work and similarly the judiciary has also neverinterfered in any other constitutional body’s work. It should be understoodthat the verdict of the Supreme Court is final.

Therefore I outrightly reject the term coined as confrontation between theparliament and the judiciary. For a vibrant democracy, decisions must have checksand counter-checks.

Nagendar Sharma : But, Mr Bhardwaj, turning to the burning issue of Officeof Profit [OOP], whyis the government unwilling to consider the suggestions made by the Presidentwhile returning the bill to the parliament for reconsideration? does this notgive the impression that the government is not ready to listen to anyone and ispurely guided by political compulsions?

H.R. Bhardwaj : A lot of confusion is being spread on the Office of Profitbill. What I do not understand is why was such a furore created? MPs acrossparty lines have been holding additional offices pertaining to theirconstituencies or states they represent. It is not that they have been earninglot of money, in fact they have been burdened by additional work. A falseimpression was created in the country as if some MPs were earning a huge amountof money by holding additional offices. Please go through the facts first. The government fully respects the views of the President. It has beenrespectfully conveyed to the President that suggestions given by him would bediscussed in the Parliament. His message would be read out in the Parliament anddiscussion on the bill would centre around that.

Nagendar Sharma : But the union cabinet has decided to re-introduce the bill in itsoriginal form without making any changes. It clearly means that the governmenthas ignored President’s suggestions.

H.R. Bhardwaj : I would like to make it clear that President's office is abovedispute and cannot be dragged in any sort of controversy. The President of thecountry cannot be made a topic of discussion in any manner. The President's nameshould never be dragged to influence a parliamentary debate. So far as the UPAgovernment is concerned, we fully respect the President's office and his views.

We have already made an offer to the opposition that if it wants we are readyfor a detailed debate in the House. We categorically want to state that the billwhich was sent to the president after having been passed by both houses ofparliament was correct and it had no shortcoming - legal or constitutional.However since the President has made some suggestions, those would be debated togive due respect to his views.

Listener from Bihar : Sir, but, why is the government only exemptingcertain offices coming under office of profit clause? Why does the governmentnot bring a comprehensive legislation so that the issue is settled once and forall ? It creates an impression that the government is completely working underpressure of Left parties.

H.R. Bhardwaj : It has been a tradition in our country that if any MP wasgiven an additional work concerning his state or constituency, then it wasincumbent on the MP to get his additional office exempted from the parliament.It was till now merely a procedural matter till the opposition recently decidedto raise the controversy.

Article 102 of the Constitution, which defines disqualification for holdingan office of profit also provides the remedy of exemption with Parliament'sassent. Those making a lot of noise should understand that posts of leaders ofopposition in both houses of Parliament, chief whips and chairpersons of variouscommittees have been exempted by the same procedure that they are opposingtoday. It is the only constitutional way of resolving this issue. The UPAgovernment has taken a broad stand rising above party politics. It is a factthat MPs from various parties, holding additional offices including the chiefwhip of BJP in Lok Sabha, figure in the list of those which the government isseeking to exempt by bringing this bill.

So far as the question of a uniform and comprehensive legislation isconcerned, well, the local conditions are different in each state. Whatconstitutes an office of profit in west Bengal, does not do so in Maharashtra.That is why the UP government brought its own legislation in the matter, so didthe Jharkhand state government. Therefore any single law would not be able tosolve the problem of the entire country.

Listener from Delhi : Mr Bhardwaj, it has been more than two years sincethe UPA government assumed office. In this time, how far do you think yourgovernment succeeded in fulfilling its electoral promise of providing justice tothe common man?

H.R. Bhardwaj : India has an ancient legal system which has been in placesince the British rule. We have not gone in for a complete overhaul - which wouldhave been impractical. Instead we have decided to take steps for improvement.First of all, the UPA government decided to modernise the judicial machinery inthe country, which was in a primitive stage. Work was being done manually using typewriters.Beginning with the Supreme Court, and then to all the High Courts -- these are all now fully computerised and now the work is on in thedistrict courts. This has led to updating the judiciary as well as the law ministry about the pendency of cases in each court, which was not known earlier.After this, we are going to computerise the magistrates courts as well. Next wedecided to fill the vacant posts of judges in the country and we have been ableto appoint 250 High Court judges in last two years.

BBC listener from Kolkota : Sir, whether we create more courts or appoint morejudges, that is not the solution in my view as the fact is that the common man doesnot trust this legal procedure in which killers of Jessica Lal, PriyadarshiniMattoo and Nitish Katara walk free – to name a few. Is the government doinganything to restore the trust of common people in the judiciary?

H.R. Bhardwaj : Well, let us be clear one thing that be it a politician, or acriminal or a common man -- all are equal in the eyes of law. Indian law doesnot discriminate against anyone on the basis of their social status. We may brandanyone powerful and others weak, but they are all a part of the society and ifsomeone feels that they are being subjected to any kind of injustice then it istheir duty to raise their voice rather than maintaining silence on it. Aggrievedpeople and their relatives and  friends should ensure that witnesses come forward todepose, they should follow-up the prosecution handling of the case and keep acheck. 

I admit during the past years some main criminal trials have collapseddue to faulty investigation and poor arguments from the prosecution side, which has led to public dissatisfaction and aware sections of the society have spokenout against this. It has been due to such voices that the government decided tobring in laws for ensuring justice to the families of the victimes in criminal trials.Recently, the government has amended the existing criminal laws to provideprotection to witnesses, make investigation free of governmental clutches andappointment of efficient public prosecutors. What we want is that there shouldbe a widespread debate in the country on ways to improve the legal system, andthe government would respond to suggestions and we should be able to make the legalsystem responsive, cost effective, resulting in quick disposal of cases.

Listener from Ghazipur : Sir common people like me find the legalprocedure of the country very complicated and time- consuming. Cases linger on incourts for years and decades, and for the majority of people of the countryliving in villages there is no access to the law. Why does the government notinitiate village courts?

H.R. Bhardwaj : I must congratulate you on your farsighted and intelligentquestion. The government is already taking steps to ensure time-bound disposalof cases. Common people of the country should get justice quickly and at lowcosts, this is the spirit of the constitution and the government is determinedto get this done. I am happy to inform you that the union government is soongoing to bring a bill for setting up of village courts. These courts wouldfunction in the villages, so that the people living in villages do not have tospend money to travel to towns in search of justice. In fact, justice would beprovided to them at their door-step, and this would be time bound. This is thepriority of UPA government. I am in constant touch with the law ministers ofstates and soon the country should hear about this.

Nagendar Sharma : Village courts would definitely be a big step,but would such courts be effective? 

H.R. Bhardwaj : Well, as the name suggests, these courts would be called Gramin Nyayalayas. Presently, we have a procedure in the country that judicial officerssit in their courts and people have to come to the courts. Now under thisproposal, these nyayalas would function in villages at the intermediate Panchayat level. At present there are more than six thousand suchPanchayats inthe country. The judges for these nayayalas would have the power to decide civilcases upto the limit on one lakh rupees and criminal cases in which there is asentence of two years. Judges would sit in public and would hold summary trialsand they would have a three month period to decide the cases. Separate cadre wouldbe created for the selection of judges to work in Gramin Nyayalas. This wouldbring down the pendency of cases and avoid the hardships caused to villagersfrom travelling to spending money. This concept is based on the Law Commissionreport.

Listener from Jharkhand : Sir, militant activities are on the rise in thecountry and it looks that existing laws are not sufficient to act as a deterrentin checking such dangerous trends. Is it not the time to re-enact a tough lawlike POTA, while ensuring it is not misused?

H.R. Bhardwaj : Well, terrorism is a problem which has assumed globalproportions and the way to deal with it would also have to be such. Let meremind you that I was the Law Minister of the country when we had decided tobring TADA, to deal with the problem of militancy in Punjab. What happened laterwas that voices were raised against that law saying it was a tough law andshould be repealed. Keeping in mind the sentiments of the country, theparliament decided to repeal it. Then the world was shaken up by 9/11 attacks inNew York, following which all the countries of the world said a joint fightagainst terrorism was required. In keeping with it, the government in India ofthat time decided to bring POTA, but a lot of complaints were received about itsmisuse. After coming to office, our government set-up review committees to lookinto the complaints, and you would be surprised to know that till date we arereceiving lot of complaints that poor people have been harassed by that law.Therefore what is required is not another law, but a comprehensive approach todeal with militancy, and our existing laws are sufficient to deal with the problem.What we require is a fresh look at the investigative agencies, greater vigilanceby our security forces and strong determination to deal with it.

Nagendar Sharma : What are the concrete steps being taken to clear the huge back-log ofcases in the courts of the country?

H.R. Bhardwaj : Well, we have identified our priorities to clear the back-logof cases. Since assuming office nearly two years back, the UPA government hascreated a record by appointing 250 High Court judges in the country. This meansan average of 125 judges each year, earlier this average was 60-70 per year. Weare now moving towards zero vacancies in High Courts. Next we are looking atdistrict courts, which would have to be done by the state governments inconsultation with the respective high courts. We have earmarked Rs one thousandcrores for the computerisation of all the courts in the country. Soon therewould be a time when Supreme Court could find out the status of cases indistrict courts by the click of a mouse.