State governments are seeking to end the fund squeeze, governors are withholding bills and playing havoc with universities. Meanwhile, the Enforcement Directorate’s political victims are asking for bail, and academics are languishing in jail. All of them want judicial intervention to end the executive excesses.
The liberal India is in a desperate gold rush: for something more precious than the yellow metal. Harassed opposition state governments, civil society members, liberal intellectuals languishing in jails for alleged Naxal links and the victims of ED, CBI and income tax department seeking bail after their arrests — all are knocking at the doors of the higher judiciary for redress.
Such a frantic quest for justice by varied sections has never happened in India’s judicial history. The Supreme Court and high courts are flooded with public interest cases involving mindless violations of rules, human rights and seeking justice. This is because, in the course of the last 10 years, the normal inbuilt bureaucratic steel structure and statutory watchdog bodies have been deliberately wrecked.
In the US, they say, the core bureaucracy, by and large, withstood the Trump onslaught. But in India, to quote L.K. Advani’s Emergency dictum, when told to bent, they crawled. There have been isolated wimps of protest though. In fact, Amit Shah found the officials more obliging that such persons became the preferred choice as heads for autonomous statutory bodies as well as political assignments. All this made bodies like the CAG, CIC, CVC, NSO, CBI and ED comatose.
Thus aggrieved citizens look to the only surviving, though partially impaired, judiciary, for justice. In our time as reporters, we described the Supreme Court judgements on constitutional matters as ‘landmark’. These days, such judicial pronouncements on highly contentious issues involving public matters are happening every day.
For instance, a random check of court rosters showed five public interest cases listed for March 15, six for 20, four for 22 and six for April 21. Take a look at the kind of cases that came up on those dates in the courts.
Pre-arrest bail not an rule: SC; SC asks centre to consider bailout package as one-time relief; Relaxing its own bailout plan, SC orders to free up 67,000 sq km for transmission lines for solar power; Prisoners granted bail should be released within 48 hrs, says Delhi HC; Telangana HC rules right to remain silent is a fundamental right in probe cases; SC refuses to stay probe into farmer’s death; SC imposes stay on Allahabad HC scrapping of Madrasa education board.
In the pre-Modi era, states rarely approached the higher judiciary for justice. Even if they had to approach the top court, it was typically on issues related to inter-state disputes such as borders and water disputes. Now, opposition-ruled states have become the biggest litigants in both the Supreme Court and high courts, forced to seek redress for denial of central funds and allocations
This is aimed at starving the opposition states of funds and thus making them unpopular with the people. In addition, there have been a large number of complaints against the governors for meddling in the conduct of normal administration.
The reasons for the rise in judicial interventions are embedded in the Modi regime’s power calculus. The first is the collapse of the culture of dialogue. In the pre-Modi era, even in the thick of political confrontations on emerging issues, senior ruling party leaders left a second channel of communication with the opposition leaders. During the Vajpayee era, those like Jaswant Singh had personal relationships with opposition leaders.
Every prime minister in India had cultivated such a set of leaders. Modi’s authoritarian paradigm has no room for such interaction.
Negotiation with opponents is viewed as a weakness. Even within the BJP, internal discussions are a taboo. Second, which also flows from the first, is the centralisation of economic and political decision-making and proclivity for confrontational politics.
Also read: Vajpayee Wouldn’t Have Recognised the Personality-Driven Parliament Modi Is Running
The third is Modi’s innate disdain for division of federal powers and the concept of participatory democracy. Elected dictators world over discourage autonomy for local governments. Instead, they prefer the supreme leader’s direct control.
“Modi himself is the candidate in all of India’s 543 constituencies,” proclaimed a leading former minister in Modi’s cabinet, who is now deputed to manage elections in southern states.
This explains the Modi regime’s imposition of its welfare programmes (named after ‘PM’) on the states even though they are essentially state subjects. Look at the frantic gold rush to the courts seeking justice.
- The Tamil Nadu government moved the Supreme Court for a timebound release of Rs 38,000-crore relief for cyclone and flood damage. The state had written to the home ministry last December to this effect.
- The Punjab government rushed to the Supreme Court over the non-reimbursement of statutory fees running into Rs 4,000 crore that it had levied on behalf of the Centre for food gram procurement.
- The Karnataka government filed a case in the Supreme Court against the Centre for the release of a drought fund of Rs 5,600 crore.
- The Kerala government filed a plea against the Centre’s move to lease Thiruvananthapuram airport to Adani’s.
- In a move to settle the bilateral dispute, the Supreme Court suggested to the Centre to extend a one-time special package to Kerala to help it deal with the financial crisis.
- The chief ministers of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Karnataka came to Delhi to jointly protest against discrimination in the allocation of central funds.
- A PIL alleged the Centre was discriminating against the West Bengal government in allocating funds was filed in the Calcutta high court.
- The Calcutta high court directed state and central governments to pay pending dues of MGNREGA workers.
Authoritarians world over resort to confrontational federalism as their main instrument of retaining power. Apparently, Modi-Shah wants to starve the opposition state governments of funds. This, they hope, will turn them unpopular. Another instrument of direct central control has been the governors in opposition-ruled states. Consider how they were behaving in the past few years.
- While considering a petition against Tamil Nadu governor T.N. Ravi, an irked Supreme Court asked him what he was doing for three years without either returning the Bills or approving them.
- Tamil Nadu governor’s activism has forced chief minister M.K. Stalin to urge the president to remove the incumbent for inciting communal hatred.
- Ravi’s refusal to swear in K. Ponmudi as a minister has invited the Supreme Court’s strong admonition.
- West Bengal governor asks the state government to remove a minister for election code violation, a job that comes under the Election Commission.
- Kerala governor Arif Muhammad Khan staged a sit-in protest when students protested against his actions.
In the pre-Modi years, governors, by and large, confined themselves to the Raj Bhawans and maintained a dignified aura. Controversies were rare, and they were concerned with skipping the irksome portions of their opening address to the assemblies. Whenever any misuse of Article 356, recommending the dismissal of the government happened, the Supreme Court intervened. The media, unlike the ‘godi media’, had freely debated the gubernatorial ‘excesses’ and ‘transgressions’ – without nervously looking to North Block and DDU Marg.
Like other statutory positions under this government, the governors in opposition-ruled states have been assigned a storm-trooper’s role. And, the former West Bengal governor, who has been adequately rewarded and made vice president, is their role model. Hence Arifs, Ravis and Ananda Boses are striving hard to grab New Delhi’s attention.
Undoubtedly, Delhi provides the worst case scenario. Every other day, the embattled AAP leaders rush to the Supreme Court and high court for justice. Disobedience by the chief secretaries and others secretaries has led to such chaos that the state health minister warned them of filing court cases if anyone died due to shortage of medicine. The L-G, Union home ministry’s man in Delhi, on his part, has complained to the North Block that the state ministers are not attending meetings. Such has been the chaotic situation created by the Centre’s confrontational policies.
An exasperated Supreme Court in February had asked the Centre to discuss and settle its funds allocation dispute with the Kerala government. But the talks failed. This month, again it asked the Centre to settle its issues with Karnataka. But a solution is not likely because fund denial is part of the regime’s political war against the Opposition.
