www.clintongate.com
POWER seems to have made President Bill Clinton insensitive to public criticism. Not that he is unaware of the havoc that the Starr report about his extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky has caused. The starkly graphic details of his relations with the White House intern have put him in a bind.
Focus back on economy DESPITE its long years of ambition to become the ruling party at the Centre, the BJP has never bothered to build a credible think-tank on economic policies.

SPEAKERS’ CONFERENCE
by C. K. Jain
SPEAKERS of all the legislatures in the country will be meeting in New Delhi on September 22 and 23 to discuss reforms in their rules of procedure and also the anti-defection law. On September 24 they will debate on electoral reforms at a symposium.
Russia: unending crisis
by O. N. Mehrotra
SINCE Russia, under the leadership of President Boris Yeltsin, decided to join other Soviet republics in bringing about the disintegration of the Soviet Union in December, 1991, it has never had normal political development.

CJI-designate: stickler for judicial discipline by Anupam Gupta CONTINUING a happily unbroken tradition, the seniormost puisne Judge of the Supreme Court has been appointed as the next Chief Justice of India. Three weeks from now, as Chief Justice M.M. Punchhi retires, Justice A.S. Anand will step into what promises to be an eventful tenure, no less than three years long, at the helm of the busiest and most powerful apex court in the world. When ‘Black Cats’ are on the prowl by Humra Quraishi WHENEVER one spots ‘Black Cats’ crossing the path in or around Khan Market it is a sure sign that some VVIP politician is on the shopping prowl.

75 Years Ago

Wakf property and
its management
NAWAB Sir Zulfiqar Ali Khan moved for consideration the Bill to make provision for better management of Wakf property, and for ensuring the keeping and publication of proper accounts in respect of such properties, as passed by the Legislative Assembly.

www.clintongate.com

POWER seems to have made President Bill Clinton insensitive to public criticism. Not that he is unaware of the havoc that the Starr report about his extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky has caused. The starkly graphic details of his relations with the White House intern have put him in a bind. The whole episode has shocked large sections of Americans who still care for a value -based system. It is indeed gratifying to see that the American political system is very much alive and vibrant. It can take on the world's most powerful person without any bloodshed. It is not a vindictive game as many people would like us to believe. It is an open game based on certain facts and evidence. And the "facts" in the Lewinsky case are not entirely manipulative in nature. Otherwise, President Clinton, after defending himself with half-lies and quarter-truths, would not have finally admitted his guilt of having an affair with a youngster under the sacred canopy of the White House. How a busy President with all the powerful buttons at his command to unleash a nuclear war in any part of the globe could find time for playful acts is itself mind-boggling. But then human weaknesses are human weaknesses.

Mr Clinton is reputed to be a good President. He knows the art of power management. Even the economy has boomed during his tenure. Politico-economic success is, however, one thing and moral values are quite another. There is no dearth of success stories of persons who may not be otherwise clean. Mr Clinton has erred and that too very badly. By his conduct, he has thrown up a great moral dilemma before the American public. While the US Congress is seized of the matter, it is not certain whether its final verdict will be in favour of his impeachment. True, the US Congressmen too are politicians. They will finally go by public opinion. If the majority of the Americans find him guilty in their perception, they will not hesitate to go along with them. But if public opinion is willing to condone his acts of sin on the basis of his good performance as President, they would probably take a more lenient view of Mr Clinton's escapades. In that case, the moral dilemma subconsciously bothering the majority of the Americans today will remain unresolved.

Other occupants of the White House were not necessarily clean. But they knew how to manage their personal affairs, away from the public gaze. Mr Clinton was apparently a man in a hurry, messing up his political career in pathological pursuit of pleasures. Of course, he has put a premium on himself. He is not yet ready to judge himself on the ground that he has lost his moral authority to rule. He still thinks that "it is a right thing for the country and for him to stay on the job," notwithstanding the fact that the US Congress is debating whether to initiate impeachment proceedings against him for the alleged perjury, obstruction of justice and possible abuse of power. We are not sure whether Mr Clinton will finally go the Nixon way. Mr Nixon had to go ingloriously after the infamous Watergate scandal. That was a messy affair. After 24 years, the USA is facing another major politico-moral crisis. What price President Clinton will have to pay will be known in crucial days ahead.

Full marks to American democracy. It has lived up to its reputation and made the world's most powerful person lick the dust. We wish Indian democracy could show the same dynamism beyond the closed system of "you scratch my back and I scratch your back". No wonder, the mighty, the corrupt and the immoral here go scot-free under a protective shield. Be that as it may. As far as President Clinton is concerned, more than weekly spiritual counselling, a dignified course will be an honourable exit before it is too late. Having a President without moral authority could mean the weakening of American democracy. The release of videotapes concerning the scandal will only further erode his authority. But like most Indian politicians, Mr Clinton too lives under the delusion that he is "the right thing" for his country. Is he? It is for the American people to decide. And they, for a change, are under global watch along with their free-wheeling President. Globalisation indeed, courtesy Clintongate!

Focus back on economy

DESPITE its long years of ambition to become the ruling party at the Centre, the BJP has never bothered to build a credible think-tank on economic policies. It is surprising since this country has had more than its share of free enterprise enthusiasts and anti-state intervention zealots. This slip is showing now, somewhat accentuated by swadeshi mongers. Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee is trying to make up for this by taking a hand in giving a direction and momentum to faster and higher economic growth. The result is twofold: the setting up of two advisory councils last month and the activation of one of them last Friday. The Prime Minister is a great believer in the successful Japanese model of making economic growth a joint venture of the government and leading industrial houses. The administration will act as the facilitator and the corporate sector as the doer. This should bear fruit, he thinks, since the interests of both converge unerringly on growth and greater growth. And nothing will nurture this new spirit of cooperation more than the personal interest and participation of the chief executive of the country himself. This association has been made deeper by involving the PMO as the interface between the ministries concerned and the business community. This should create the right sentiments which play a great role in encouraging investment, though economic fundamentals play a greater role. And here lies the rub.

The Prime Minister wants the growth rate to improve to 7 per cent for the next three years, compared to the projection of 6 per cent or less. The revised target is not unachievable; one way is to work the installed capacity of all industries. But the problem is slack demand, which in turn is the fallout of shrinking public investment over the past three years, despite ballooning government expenditure. The assembled corporate chieftains rightly sought greater investment by the government to lift the sagging demand for capital goods and intermediates. But the government will like to depend on the inflow of foreign funds to fill the gap. One area which needs immediate infusion of funds is infrastructure and the need runs into hundreds of thousands of crores. Improved infrastructure will boost industrial production and exports — another area of urgent concern — and that will generate surplus to plough back into improving infrastructure. The two are interlinked and hence the present logjam. The meeting noted that India has managed to insulate itself from the adverse impact of the Asian market meltdown and attributed this to the inherent resilience of the economy. It is closer to truth to link it to the several closed sectors of the economy, rather those parts which are yet to be touched by deregulation. Integration with global economy will knock out this protection. Now that the Prime Minister is free from daily pinpricks from wayward coalition partners, he has turned his attention to one area which commands the concentration of nation’s energy. Even free market model has to be constantly guided and goaded to move along.

SPEAKERS’ CONFERENCE
Some vital suggestions
by C. K. Jain

SPEAKERS of all the legislatures in the country will be meeting in New Delhi on September 22 and 23 to discuss reforms in their rules of procedure and also the anti-defection law. On September 24 they will debate on electoral reforms at a symposium.

The origin of the Speakers’ Conference, known as the Conference of the Presiding Officers of Legislative Bodies in India, dates back to the pre-Independence days when the British Parliament enacted the Government of India Act, 1919, based on the scheme of constitutional reforms formulated by the then Secretary of State, Lord Montague, and the Viceroy, Lord Chelmsford. The joint select committee of the British Parliament in recommending the appointment of the first Speaker to the Central Legislative Assembly observed, “He should be guide and adviser of the Presidents (as the Speakers were known then) and he should be chosen with a view to the influence which it is hoped he would have on the whole history of parliamentary procedure in India”.

With that objective, the first President of the Central Legislative Assembly, Sir Frederick Whyte, who had earlier been a member of the British House of Commons, convened the first conference of the Presidents and Deputy Presidents of the Provincial Legislative Councils on September 14 and 16, 1921, in Delhi. Vithalabhai Patel, who succeeded Sir Frederick Whyte in 1925 as the first elected Speaker of the Central Legislative Assembly, gave a great impetus to the Presiding Officers Conference.

Up to 1946 the conference was held in Delhi or Shimla as and when decided by the Speaker of the Central Legislative Assembly. It was indeed the good fortune of the country that G.V. Mavalankar was elected Speaker of the Central Legislative Assembly on January 24, 1946. He had been the Speaker of the Bombay Legislative Assembly during 1937-45 and had earned a great name as a highly successful presiding officer. After Independence, he became the Speaker of the Constituent Assembly (Legislative), the Provisional Parliament and also of the first Lok Sabha. It was Speaker Mavalankar who decided that the Presiding Officers Conference be held annually and in different state capitals. As Chairman of conference, Speaker Mavalankar guided the evolution of the conference, raising it to the level of a meaningful and powerful forum to deliberate on procedural matters to help the nascent legislatures in adopting healthy and homogenous parliamentary practices and conventions as also fostering national unity through personal contacts.

Speaker Ayyangar cast a more profound responsibility on the conference when he exhorted the participating presiding officers at the Darjeeling session in October, 1958, thus: “I have always felt that at our annual conferences and at other conferences, we should address ourselves to devising ways and means of spreading the democratic spirit in the country besides addressing ourselves to matters of parliamentary practice and procedure. The substance is always more important than the form.”

The conference deliberations have provided clarity to various constitutional provisions with regard to the powers and privileges of the legislatures in India which are broadly equated with those enjoyed by the British House of Commons. Similarly, the conference has helped in correctly interpreting the meaning, purpose and scope of various constitutional doctrines and principles which became necessary in the practical working of institutions.

In the late sixties, the malady of floor-crossing afflicted the Indian polity resulting in the fragmentation of political parties and instability of governments. Some Speakers overstepped their powers vis-a-vis the House, so also some Governors arrogated to themselves the power to decide whether or not the ruling party or the combination of parties enjoyed a majority in the House. Expressing its concern on “unprincipled floor-crossing by legislators assuming serious proportions, causing political instability and thereby eroding people’s faith in parliamentary institutions, the 1967 conference, while deprecating, “the crossing of the floor for entirely personal gains”, stressed the need to evolve proper conventions. The subsequent conferences suggested suitable statutory restrictions to curb the trend.

The conference has always held the view that the only appropriate forum to test whether or not a government enjoyed majority support is the floor of the House. In cases threatening a confrontation between the legislature and the judiciary, the conference, while expressing faith in the independence of the judiciary and its assigned role under the Constitution, has favoured a relationship of mutual trust and respect, and the courts to recognise the exclusive jurisdiction of the legislatures in deciding all matters relating to their privileges, including those of their members and committees without any interference from the courts of law or any other authority.

Recognising that a free Press is an essential attribute of democracy, the conference has been in favour of close and harmonious relations between the legislatures and the media as the latter’s constructive role will greatly help in strengthening the democratic institutions in the country. On disorderly scenes in the legislatures which have assumed menacing proportions in recent years and the shrinking duration of the sessions, the conference in 1992, 1996 and 1997 emphasised the need to adhere to the code of conduct and to increase the number of sittings of the House. The conference has also commented to all the state legislatures to introduce departmentally-related committees on the pattern followed in Parliament for greater scrutiny of the working of ministries in order to secure the accountability of the executive to the legislatures.

Achievements of the conference notwithstanding, it has to be conceded that it has failed to save the legislatures from the onslaughts to which they have been subjected. The conference did not even raise its voice in protest. The result is that the legislatures as an institution have become weak, non-functioning and non-performing, robbed of their power and authority and in the process losing the credibility and prestige in the eyes of the people whom they seek to represent. Causes for this decay are many, the foremost being the devaluation of the institution of the Speaker. The prestige and dignity of the Speaker is that of the legislature itself.

During the past 50 years how the Speakers have been chosen in the states by the ruling party, how they are made ministers and how they conduct themselves inside the House and outside, is a matter which ought to have received the attention of the conference, but it did not. Even Lok Sabha Speaker Ayyangar, although re-elected to the third Lok Sabha, was unceremoniously denied the speakership and was sent away as Governor of Bihar. With the imposition of the Emergency in 1975, Parliament and the state legislatures lost a great deal in their powers and privileges, but the conference silently acquiesced, not even raised objection on its Chairman, Speaker Dhillon, being shifted as a minister. The conference has always shied away, a discussion on the conduct of the presiding officers, however, unbecoming it may be. One of the resolutions adopted at the 1996 conference reads: “Ideally the persons who are to occupy the office of the presiding officer of legislatures should be such that they have aptitude for maintaining propriety and orderly conduct of business; are reputed for their impartiality, fact and diplomacy, and understanding and sympathy; and are capable of infusing confidence in the members”. Perhaps the conference adopted this resolution only as an ideal not to be achieved.

Therefore, the Speakers Conference, to be an effective instrument for restoring to Parliament and the state legislatures their rightful role, has to ask its member-presiding officers first to do some soul-searching themselves so that they are able to follow the great tradition of Speaker Mavalankar. He said: “The success of parliamentary democracy depends not only on the impartiality of the presiding officer — the Speaker — but also on his courage and indifference to the favours and frowns of the executive government”.

There is indeed imperative need for giving a fresh look to the entire gamut of the procedure and practices and the rules and conventions regulating the conduct of business in the House in the light of the past experience of half-a-century, and particularly to respond to the changed situation — single-party rule replaced by a coalition of several parties with diverse ideologies and programmes. While the existing parliamentary devices like questions, calling attention, half-an-hour discussions, short duration discussions, motions and resolutions may be allowed more by increasing higher limits as also liberalising the admissibility conditions, some procedural innovations may also be considered. Everyday a calling attention notice, short-notice questions and a half-an-hour discussion may be listed on the agenda to afford more opportunities to members for raising matters of their interest. This will the ministers responsive as well as responsible.

The so-called “zero hour” must be done away with as neither it has the sanction of the rules nor does it serves any useful purpose. Like fast food, most of which is dead food, it goes waste. Ministers in the absence of prior notice get away easily without responding. A new procedure may be introduced to allow one matter or two of urgent public importance involving larger national interest chosen by the Speaker to be raised after question time for not exceeding half-an-hour. The member seeking to raise such a matter, in addition to a notice to the Speaker, should inform the minister concerned so that he will be ready to respond. Matters of relatively less importance may be allowed to be raised in the evening at 5.30 p.m. on a motion moved by the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs for adjournment of the debate. The subject or subjects to be raised at this time may by chosen by a ballot or the Speaker’s own choice, and the debates may conclude at 6 or 6.30 p.m.

The committee system also requires a thorough review and a closer scrutiny with reference to the composition of different committees, their functions, performance and the impact felt by the executive. Even after the introduction of the standing joint parliamentary committees for ministries, all the parliamentary committees that existed before are continuing. In the British House of Commons with the introduction of the House of Commons standing committees on ministries, all earlier committees excepting the Public Accounts Committee or the Subordinate Legislation Committee have ceased to exist. In any case, the proliferation of committees is no guarantee for an effective and meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. Rather it involves duplication of efforts and the avoidable waste of public funds. The Parliamentary Consultative Committees, although composed of members of Parliament but headed by the ministers concerned, serve hardly any purpose and should be dispensed with. The conference, which had made this recommendation earlier too, should not only reiterate but also press the government to implement it.

The conference should also address to other related matters: how the standard of committees’ functioning be raised; how the involvement of members in the work of the committees be made meaningful; how to ensure speedy and genuine implementation of the recommendations of the committees by the government and so on. Members need to be persuaded to develop specialisation and should opt to serve only on those committees in which they can contribute. Parties should also choose their nominees on the committees accordingly. The committees composed mostly of generalists should have the benefit of specialists or experts and with that object, they may have a team or panel of experts to advise them on matters under their study or examination. These panels may be drawn from interested cross-sections to serve the committees as “think tanks”.

The other matters of vital importance which the conference must deliberate is “legislature secretariats”. Despite the specific constitutional provision guaranteeing independence to the legislature secretariats from the influence and control of the executive, and even after a lapse of more than 50 years, many state legislature secretariats are still either part of the government legislative department or totally dependent on the Law and Finance Departments. Where they are independent of government control as such, Speakers by their arbitrary ways have jeopardised their growth and development as an independent institution truly in the service of the legislature.

In the absence of the law envisaged in Clause (2) of Articles 98 and 187 of the Constitution, there is no institutional mechanism to regulate the service conditions of the staff in the secretariats of the Houses of Parliament and the state legislatures and oversee their functioning. If the officers manning these secretariats are picked up by the Speakers as their own choice and in disregard of the established norms, it not only unjustly and adversely affects the career prospects of the officers who have grown with the secretariat imbibing its “work culture”, different from the government departments and peculiar for serving the legislatures, but also weakens these institutions. Obviously, the personal choices do not have a sense of belonging to the institution and their interest is restricted to the individual who appointed them and to the reaping of benefits of “greener pasture”. The creation of an all-India service — namely, the Indian Parliamentary Service — suggested several times in the past, should be given practical shape without further delay. And this conference may decide on the modalities. It is high time and the extremely appropriate for the conference to address to this matter on which depends the success of the parliamentary institutions.

(The author is a former Secretary-General, Lok Sabha.)

Russia: unending crisis
by O. N. Mehrotra

SINCE Russia, under the leadership of President Boris Yeltsin, decided to join other Soviet republics in bringing about the disintegration of the Soviet Union in December, 1991, it has never had normal political development. Mr Yeltsin himself is a maverick. Perhaps he does not believe in following certain norms and establish political traditions that may be followed by other leaders in building a mature democratic polity.

Following his own style of functioning, President Yeltsin dismissed in August his Prime Minister Sergei Kriyenko whom he appointed in March by firing Viktor Chernomyrdin, who had been the Prime Minister for five and a half years. Interestingly, Mr Yeltsin again nominated Mr Chernomyrdin in place of Mr Kriyenko. He has not given any convincing reason for his unimaginative behaviour.

It may be recalled that Mr Kriyenko’s appointment was rejected by the Russian Parliament (the Duma) twice. His name was finally approved because if the Duma rejects the President’s candidate for Prime Ministership thrice, he can dissolve the Duma and new elections would follow. It was widely believed that Mr Chernomyrdin was dismissed because he was becoming too presidential.

Be that as it may, in spite of his tall claims of being a democrat and a popular leader of Russia, Mr Yeltsin has suffered in terms of his popularity immensely, and the Duma has been hostile to him. The Duma, denominated by communists and nationalists, twice rejected the candidature of Mr Chernomyrdin for the Prime Ministership of Russia. The Duma threatened to initiate the proceedings of impeachment against President Yeltsin and would not approve the candidature of Mr Chernomyrdin who was responsible for the economic crisis and social disorder.

Mr Chernomyrdin was opposed by both the centrist Yabloke (the Apple) block under Mr Grigori Yavlinsky and by the Communist Party, under Mr Gennadi Zyuganov. However, Mr Chernomyrdin drew support from the ultra-nationalist block of Mr Vladimir Zirinovsky, and his own block, Our Home Is Russia. In the meantime, Mayor Yuri Luzhkov of Moscow gained support as a possible alternative nominee in case Mr Yeltsin decided to abandon Mr Chernomyrdin. Mr Luzhkov’s candidature was supported by regional leaders. He is also an aspirant for the post of President in the next election, scheduled in 2000.

But Mr Yavlinsky suggested the dropping of Mr Chernomyrdin for Foreign Minister Yevgeni Primakov, who belongs to no political party, has no ideological attachment and has expressed his unwillingness to accept the responsibilities that would most probably not enhance the image but ruin it. It may be recalled that in January, 1996, Mr Primakov was appointed Foreign Minister by dismissing pro-West Anatoli Kazyrev and merely five months before the presidential election. At that time it was widely believed they even if communist nominee Zyuganov would win the election Mr Primakov would retain his position. Finally, Mr Primakov could win the approval of the Duma for the post of Prime Minister.

His appointment could be approved possibly because an agreement was reportedly reached between President Yeltsin and the communists about the economic policy to be followed, and the latter would have a role in the formation of the new ministry. Consequently, liberal Russian and Western media viewed Mr Primakov’s appointment as a “communist coup” and a “reversal of market reforms.” In fact, Mr Primakov could become Prime Minister for his non-committal policy. He is likely to follow the middle path.

Western countries, which advised post-Soviet Russia to follow liberal economic policy, failed to extend suitable assistance to an aiding Russia for transforming its command economy. Western aid to Russia could reach just the $2 billion level a year, a small fraction of post-war Marshall aid to Europe. The utopian worship of free market caused the collapse of the East Asian economy and the Russian implosion. The current Russian economic policy has failed to produce positive results. Therefore, the government has to intervene in economic affairs and regulate them. The success of Mr Primakov will depend on his policy of resolving the economic crisis in the country.

In case Mr Primakov receives support from liberals, communists and ultra-nationalist in tackling the current economic crisis, he may be able to bring the economy back on the rails. Since the majority of the Russian political leaders are not hostile to Mr Primakov because he is not their political rival, he is likely to receive support for his policy. — INFA

CJI-designate: stickler for judicial discipline

by Anupam Gupta

CONTINUING a happily unbroken tradition, the seniormost puisne Judge of the Supreme Court has been appointed as the next Chief Justice of India. Three weeks from now, as Chief Justice M.M. Punchhi retires, Justice A.S. Anand will step into what promises to be an eventful tenure, no less than three years long, at the helm of the busiest and most powerful apex court in the world.

“This court”, said the CJI-designate but five months ago, pronouncing perhaps the most important verdict of his judicial career (till date), is not a court whose jurisdiction is limited to dispute settling. “It is well recognised and established,” he wrote in V.C. Mishra’s case, “that this court (the Supreme Court, that is) has always been a law maker and its role travels beyond merely dispute settling. It is a problem solver in nebulous areas.”

That reminds one of the encounter between British apex judge, Lord Devlin and Robin Day of the BBC regarding judges who make law and not only interpret it. Recounted by the then CJI, Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah in 1994 in a public lecture, it went something like this:

Robin Day: You don’t take the view that judges should make the law, that’s for the legislator?

Lord Devlin: (emphatically) Yes.

Day: But Lord Denning takes the opposite view. He thinks judges should, from time to time, make the law.

Devlin: So I understand.

Day: But you must have more to say than that since this is clearly a difference on a major point.

Devlin: Well, Lord Denning is a very great judge.

Day: Yes, Lord Devlin, but surely there is more you would wish to add?

Devlin: (pause) Lord Denning is a specimen tree, you mustn’t have a whole avenue of them.

The verdict in V.C. Mishra’s case shows that the CJI-designate is fully alive to the hazard of too many Lord Dennings making too much law — the legacy of the Venkatachaliah court. Overruling on behalf of a Constitution Bench the original judgement of 1995, Justice Anand finally put the genie of Article 142 back in the constitutional bottle.

The wider the amplitude of the power under Article 142, he wrote, the greater the need to ensure that the “power is used with restraint without pushing back the limits of the Constitution” so that the Supreme Court “functions within the bounds of its jurisdiction”. To the extent that the court compels the state and statutory authorities to perform their duties in accordance with law, its role is unexceptionable “but it is not permissible for the court to take over the role of the statutory bodies or other organs of the state and perform their functions”.

Expanding on a similar theme in a lecture at the Bangalore National Law School in August, 1997, Justice Anand flayed the descent of judicial activism into judicial adventurism. It is necessary, he said, that public interest litigation should develop on a consistent and firm path and that courts do not cause uncertainty and confusion through their over-zealousness. And in a remarkable contribution to legal discourse, with strains of a Cardozo in thought and language, came out openly against a Judge who goes in “pursuit of his own notions of justice and beauty, ignoring the limits of the law, the bounds of his jurisdiction and binding precedents.”

A stickler for judicial discipline, the CJI-designate has twice in the recent past cracked the whip against what he calls “judicial authoritarianism”. The societal perception of Judges as detached and impartial referees is, according to him, the greatest strength of the judiciary. The authenticity of the judicial process rests on public confidence and public confidence rests on the legitimacy of the process. The source of legitimacy, he repeats verbatim in both the cases, is the “impersonal application by the Judge of recognised objective principles which owe their existence to a system as distinguished from subjective moods, predilections, emotions and prejudices.”

On both occasions, Judges who “radiated more heat than light” — Justice B.J. Shethna of the Rajasthan High Court and Justice R. D. Vyas of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh — and used the judicial rostrum to vent their own personal rancour, came to grief.

This is not to say that the man has never erred, or exceeded himself, and this article is not meant to be an empty paean of praise. Justice Anand’s handling of environmental litigation, a species of litigation that depends entirely on the “length of the Chancellor’s foot”, savours, at first glance, of the same impulsiveness and impatience that has marked his predecessors in the field. A similar tendency to govern by decree and to subordinate the complexities of development in the Third World to the procrustean demands of ecology is noticeable in his case as well.

His intense, undifferentiated idealism in matters of personal liberty is also a source of concern for those inclined to a more pragmatic view of the fight against crime. From Nilabati Behera (a case of which he remains immensely proud) to D.K. Basu, the starry-eyed theoretical postulates of human rights jurisprudence are often totally devastated by the realities of life. This is particularly true of terrorism, where (in all humility) the CJI-designate will have to do a lot more thinking.

There is no doubt, however, that as he prepares to assume charge of the highest judicial office in the land, Justice Anand has plenty of good will, and expectations, behind him.

When ‘Black Cats’ are on the prowl

by Humra Quraishi

WHENEVER one spots ‘Black Cats’ crossing the path in or around Khan Market it is a sure sign that some VVIP politician is on the shopping prowl. A week back I had to just crane my neck to spot Farooq Abdullah along with three or four officers going from shop to shop in this very complex. The general world around was that he was looking for a suitable gift for Urban Affairs Minister Ram Jethmalani, who celebrated his 75th birthday on September 14. A bash that was said to have not spared a single of those who’s who of this city. Anyway, Jethmalani couldn’t have got a better gift from this government in the form of his ministry’s Secretary Kiran Aggarwal getting readied for a shift from the ministry.

Can’t there be an escape?

Can’t there be an escape from the messed up political system? This is the query I put forth to Dashrath Patel, at the preview of his month long exhibition at the National Gallery of Modern Art, starting from September 18. I am well aware of the fact that this could seem a strange question to put to an artist but after seeing his mastery on the total realm of the Visual — painting, ceramics, photography, design, weave I couldn’t help but ask him whether the political decay has affected his sensitivities and does he visualise a way out. And much against the set of guarded answers that one has got so accustomed to hearing, he was forthright enough to say “You know I curse myself for not joining politics... I think I could have brought about the change, some sort of a revolution if I had joined politics....” But he has no clear answer as to why he doesn’t take that plunge even now. Afterall, as he himself says he has never restricted himself to one single medium or field. That’s probably why the so-many-firsts to his credit — he is the first recipient of a Padma Shri of Design in 1981, first Indian teacher of Design and Design Practice, the first to think along the lines of setting up of a national level design institute (along with Gautam and Gira Sarabhai he helped found the National Institute of Design in Ahmedabad in 1961), to be the sole Indian artist to have had apprenticeship simultaneously with the so called “three giants of the 20th century architecture”, Louis Kahn, Bucky Fuller, Frei Otto. And so now with all that in the background it wouldn’t seem strange if he be the first artist to take a delayed plunge into active politics!

Getting you back to this exhibition, with over 300 works on display (could be more if small ceramic pieces are also taken into account) you really get see the totality of the range of the five decades of his foray in the arts. And amidst his art pieces I also got to see and meet dancer Chandralekha who had come down from Chennai. With grey hair left loose and undyed around a young looking face she stands out, looking definitely ‘different’.

‘Papery’ progress

Visiting New Delhi last week was Pauline C. Reich, Associate Professor at the Waseda University (Tokyo). This 51-year-old trained lawyer was here as part of an extensive study tour to several countries to study and gauge how laws are actually being implemented especially in the context of “formative action for women.” During the course of her stay here she had visited the courts especially the special courts for women, several organisations said to be set up for women’s welfare and met several prominent activists and lawyers. I had met her just a few hours before she returned back to Tokyo and she spoke on a whole range of problems facing women. “I think India is the only country which has these special courts for women but regarding the implementation of the laws here I am not too sure, I have yet to form a clear impression. I have been told that many exist only on paper. Regarding the just released code of conduct at places of work vis-a-vis sexual harassment, (by the NCM), I would like to say that till you do not sensitise young people no amount of laws or codes can actually help... after all men don’t wake up early in the morning with the slogan ‘today I will molest or rape a woman in office’, they do so because right from the beginning they have not been raised with sensitivity drilled into them. In Sweden the University of Lund is conducting a special programme on how exactly to sensitise both men and women”. Another distressing aspect she found here and also in the other countries she’d visited is that though the number of women getting affected by domestic and outside violence is on the rise yet the majority of women-lawyers are taking to corporate law as against laws pertaining to women, “this could be because there is more money in fighting corporate cases”.

Commenting on the standard of the legal profession in Japan she said “Legal ethics are strong in Japan and the judiciary is totally independent of the government... it is rare for a lawyer to be corrupt, in fact one lawyer who had stolen his client’s money was imprisoned.... To enter the legal profession is very tough in Japan — in fact only 2% clear the Bar examination......”

75 YEARS AGO
Wakf property and its management

NAWAB Sir Zulfiqar Ali Khan moved for consideration the Bill to make provision for better management of Wakf property, and for ensuring the keeping and publication of proper accounts in respect of such properties, as passed by the Legislative Assembly.

Sardar Jogendra Singh supported the motion.

Mr Crerar, the Home Secretary, explained the neutral attitude of the Bill and pointed out that the Government would watch the progress of the Bill and then the operation of the Act with sympathetic interest.

Dewan Bahadur Ramachandra Naidu supported the Bill.

Sir Mahomed Shafi, Mr Raz Ali and others spoke. The Bill was then taken into consideration and passed, Mr Raza Ali objecting to Clause 13.

At the stage, Sir Narasimha Sarma returned from the Assembly; and the adjournment motion was, therefore, taken up after two hours, in which ten non-official members spoke and Sir B.N. Sarma and Sir Mahomed Shafi made speeches on the Government side.

The motion was eventually talked out, and the Council adjourned sine die. The prorogation ceremony will be held in the Assembly Chamber.