03-11-2017 (Important News Clippings)
To Download Click Here.
Date:03-11-17
Fast-tracking pending cases against legislators a welcome step
ET Editorials
The Supreme Court’s direction to the Centre to set up fasttrack courts to prosecute pending cases against legislators is welcome. The apex court has given the Centre six weeks to submit a scheme of fast-track courts. The government should comply, with the Opposition cooperating. The Election Commission supports a lifetime ban in politics for those convicted of serious crime.The appeals process should be expedited, too, as every convict has the right of appeal. This could present a knotty problem, if the preferential allocation of scarce higher judiciary time to cases involving politicians is challenged on right-to-equality grounds.A fast-track court and a lifetime ban would incentivise political parties to be more discerning in their choice of candidates. A speedy judicial process would also put the brakes on registering unfounded or politically motivated cases. This should be an opportunity for the government to focus on improving the manner in which courts are staffed.
This would have a salutary effect on the entire criminal justice system. While this is an important step towards decriminalising the political system, it is not sufficient. The government in consultation with political parties must address the issue of political funding. This is central to reforming the political system.The shift in the Supreme Court’s approach is heartening. Soon after assuming office in 2014, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had suggested setting up fast-track courts to deal with cases against legislators in a time-bound manner. At that time the Supreme Court had not favoured the proposal. It argued that it would be wrong to treat criminal cases against politicians as a distinct and special category. Instead, it asked the government to devise a system to fast track all cases.
Date:03-11-17
Netas on notice
Supreme Court pushes to decriminalise politics even as politicians dither
TOI Editorials
The Supreme Court directive to the central government to constitute special courts to try criminal cases involving politicians can help sever the neta-criminal nexus. Most of the recent moves to reverse the criminalisation of politics have come from the judiciary. Recall the quashing of a provision in the Representation of the People Act which was allowing convicted lawmakers to escape disqualification. Not surprisingly, the apex court brushed aside the Centre’s contention that constituting special courts and speedy disposal of cases was the responsibility of state governments. The government has also been non-committal on the Election Commission demand for life ban on convicts from electoral politics.
The apathy of the political class in curbing criminalisation makes their criticism of judicial activism sound hypocritical, even if sometimes justified. Data gleaned by NGOs like Association for Democratic Reforms from election affidavits indicate that nearly one-third of lawmakers (1,581 MPs and MLAs) face criminal cases. But a distinction must be made between serious criminal cases involving violent offences like murder, or crimes against women and corrupt practices, and those criminal cases filed against politicians for organising political protests. Conflating criminals with bona fide politicians will only vitiate the task at hand.
An ADR analysis of affidavits from successive elections also indicated that candidates facing criminal charges were twice as likely to win as those with a clean record. Fighting elections has become costlier, increasing the reliance among political parties on those with greater resources: money power and muscle power. Those with criminal antecedents often have the enviable reputation of getting work done by greasing the wheels of a slow moving government machinery. People cannot be blamed for reposing their trust in such leaders. But public interest and good governance are harmed when crime and corruption spread their tentacles into politics and vice versa.
Prosecuting politicians in special courts and the threat of impending disqualification will serve as a powerful disincentive for political parties to award tickets to such characters. The enduring neta-criminal nexus calls for strong corrective action rather than persisting with the status quo. The NDA government came to power in 2014 on pervasive anti-corruption sentiment. It must respond positively to the judicial interventions or adopt legislative approaches that achieve the same end. It must also concede the Election Commission’s demand to ban convicted politicians from electoral politics for life.
Date:03-11-17
नौसैनिक क्षमता में इजाफा जरूरी
प्रेमवीर दास,(लेखक पूर्वी नौसेना कमान के पूर्व कमांडर इन चीफ हैं। वह राष्ट्रीय सुरक्षा सलाहकार परिषद के सदस्य भी रह चुके हैं। लेख में प्रस्तुत विचार निजी हैं)
Date:02-11-17
A bridge too many
Employing army for non-emergency tasks — as in Mumbai — sends out troubling signals. It should be an exception
Editorials
In the presence of Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis and Union Railway Minister Piyush Goyal, Union Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced that the army would be used for constructing three railway footbridges, including the ill-fated Elphinstone Bridge where several pedestrians lost their lives four weeks ago. It is not unusual for the army to be used for making bridges: Army engineers had made a bridge for the Sri Sri Ravi Shankar mega event at the Yamuna flood plains in 2015, and had replaced a collapsed footbridge just before the Commonwealth Games in Delhi in 2010. Army engineers also have a standing duty to construct pontoon bridges during the Kumbh Mela. The army has made bridges in inaccessible areas in Jammu and Kashmir and the North-east, after a natural calamity or a humanitarian disaster. The government has, in that sense, followed established precedent.
However, the current deployment for making a bridge in Mumbai is different in many ways. The Railways have the expertise and the resources to make the bridge, and in Mumbai, can even seek help from the private sector. Moreover, this bridge is a permanent construction, unlike the ones at the Yamuna flood plains or at the Kumbh, which are made temporarily for a particular event. As the deadline for constructing the footbridge has been set as January 31, 2018, it will not even provide any urgent relief to train passengers. Notwithstanding these, the government is within its rights to employ the military for this task and it can be reasonably presumed that it would have taken the decision after consulting senior military officials and taking their advice on board.
Employing the army for such non-emergency tasks should, however, be an exception and not the norm. The military is an instrument of last resort. Soldiers are meant to prepare and train for war during peacetime, and any involvement in non-military activities distracts them from their primary task. India has witnessed the consequences of employing the military for house construction and farming during the late-1950s and early 1960s, which led to a humiliating military defeat at the hands of the Chinese in 1962. There is another more important reason for greater discretion in calling in the army. It sends out the unfortunate impression that civilian institutions have failed and only the armed forces can provide a viable alternative. That is not a healthy sign in a liberal democracy because it potentially distorts the balance of civil-military relations, and comes in the way of civilian institutions being reformed. Hopefully, Sitharaman will treat the Elphinstone bridge episode as an exception and desist from calling in the army in a similar situation in the future.
सुधार की आस
संपादकीय
तेज सुनवाई
संपादकीय
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने राजनीति को अपराधमुक्त बनाने के लिए केंद्र सरकार से फास्ट ट्रैक कोर्ट की तर्ज पर सांसदों और विधायकों के खिलाफ चल रहे मामलों की सुनवाई के लिए विशेष अदालतों का गठन करने के लिए कहा है। शीर्ष न्यायालय के इस आदेश का स्वागत किया जाना चाहिए। अगर इस दिशा में कोई ठोस पहल होगी तो वह भारतीय लोकतंत्र के लिए बेहतर ही होगा। शीर्ष न्यायालय बुधवार को एक जनहित याचिका की सुनवाई कर रहा था, जिसमें सजायाफ्ता लोगों को आजीवन चुनाव से दूर रखने तथा न्यायपालिका या प्रशासनिक पदों पर उन्हें नियुक्त न करने की मांग की गई थी। न्यायालय ने 2014 से अब तक राजनेताओं के खिलाफ दर्ज किए गए आपराधिक मामलों की जानकारी भी मांगी है। न्यायमूर्ति रंजन गोगोई और न्यायमूर्ति नवीन सिन्हा के खंडपीठ ने सरकार से कहा कि राजनीति को अपराधमुक्त होना चाहिए।
खंडपीठ ने कहा कि विशेष अदालतों के गठन की योजना और इस मद में खर्च होने वाली राशि के बारे में सरकार शीर्ष न्यायालय को अवगत कराए। साथ ही, खंडपीठ ने सरकार से 2014 के आम चुनाव में निर्वाचित 1581 सांसदों और विधायकों का वह विवरण भी दाखिल करने को कहा है जो उन्होंने अपने नामांकन पत्र में भरा था। खंडपीठ ने फिलहाल छह हफ्ते के भीतर सारी जानकारियां न्यायालय में जमा कराने का आदेश देते हुए याचिका की सुनवाई के लिए 13 दिसंबर की तारीख मुकर्रर की है। सुनवाई के दौरान केंद्र सरकार ने खंडपीठ को बताया कि दोषी ठहराए गए जनप्रतिनिधियों को आजीवन अयोग्य घोषित करने संबंधी चुनाव आयोग और विधि आयोग की सिफारिशों पर विचार किया जा रहा है। गौरतलब है कि भारतीय राजनीति में लंबे समय से अपराधियों का बोलबाला रहा है। तमाम मामलों में राजनेताओं को सजा भी मिली, लेकिन होता यही है कि वे ऊंची अदालत में अपील करके स्थगनादेश प्राप्त कर लेते हैं और फिर चुनाव लड़ने में कामयाब रहते हैं। इसलिए अरसे से इस पर विचार चल रहा है कि क्यों न सजायाफ्ता मुजरिमों को आजीवन चुनाव लड़ने से रोक दिया जाए।हालांकि चुनाव आयोग पहले ही केंद्र सरकार को सजायाफ्ता लोगों के लिए ताउम्र चुनाव लड़ने से वंचित रखने की सिफारिश कर चुका है। क्योंकि इससे पहले एक मामले में सुनवाई करते हुए सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने इस मुद्दे पर स्पष्ट रुख न अपनाने पर चुनाव आयोग की खिंचाई भी की थी। इसी साल जुलाई में जब इस मामले में सुप्रीम कोर्ट में सुनवाई चल रही थी तब केंद्र ने आजीवन चुनाव से वंचित करने की दलील का विरोध किया था। अब जबकि अदालत ने सख्त रुख अपनाया है तो माना जाना चाहिए कि इस दिशा में कोई सार्थक पहल हो सकेगी और भारतीय राजनीति में छाए अपराध के बादल छंट पाएंगे। कुछ बरसों से चुनाव आयोग की सख्ती के चलते बूथ कैप्चरिंग जैसी बुराइयों से तो निजात मिल गई है, लेकिन बाहुबलियों और अपराधियों का मनोबल आज भी पस्त नहीं हुआ है। चुनावों के दौरान आचार संहिता को कड़ाई से लागू करना आज भी एक कठिन कार्य है क्योंकि प्रत्याशियों द्वारा मतदाताओं को लुभाने के लिए पैसे और उपहार आदि बांटने का चलन अब भी कायम है। इस दिशा में भी काफी-कुछ सोचने की जरूरत है।