The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Refreshing change
Have an aptitude for IAS

THE Union Government’s decision to replace the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination with the Civil Services Aptitude Test (CSAT) is welcome because it will test candidates on their analytical abilities rather than their capacity to memorise. Significantly, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who has been playing a notable role in administrative reforms, has approved the Union Public Service Commission’s proposal for an aptitude test. The rationale behind the new method of examination is to assess to what extent the candidates for services like the IAS, IFS and IPS have the aptitude and motivation to do something good for the country rather than ending up as square pegs in round holes. Though the bureaucracy has strengthened the democratic polity, there is often tardiness and failure on its part to deal with situations. In the absence of enterprise, initiative and commitment on the part of some recruits, especially when they become Deputy Commissioners or Superintendents of Police, the cutting edge of administration suffers from negativity, insensitivity and irresponsiveness.

Over the years, many panels, including the Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2005) have advocated laying greater emphasis on the candidates’ aptitude than on their knowledge of the subject, arguing that specialists or experts in any particular subject like political science or economics may not necessarily be good civil servants. Though the UPSC is yet to prepare the modalities for the aptitude test, the proposal for the preliminary examination is to have two objective type papers that are common to candidates of all disciplines. While the General Studies paper might be suitably changed, the Aptitude Test paper may assess the candidates’ quantitative aptitude, verbal and non-verbal reasoning and awareness of administration.

The aptitude test will be introduced in the 2011 Preliminary examination. The second and third stages — Main and Interview respectively — will remain the same till an expert committee submits its report on the entire system. The new system will provide a level-playing field and equity as all candidates will have to attempt common papers unlike the existing format. While efforts to attract the right people for the right positions in the civil services are welcome, what matters most is the sincerity of officers in delivering the goods and making a perceptible change in the quality of life.

Delaying justice
High Court pulls up Haryana govt

THE Punjab and Haryana High Court has rightly pulled up the Haryana government for challenging the court rulings on one pretext or the other, thereby prolonging litigation, wasting the taxpayers’ money and compromising justice. In an important judgement recently, Justice Rajesh Bindal has directed the state Chief Secretary to probe a 22-year-old incident pertaining to the “loss” allegedly suffered by the government because of a job executed by the respondent — a sub-divisional officer at Jind. The government had recovered Rs 17,878 from the officer concerned for the work executed in 1987-90. Though two courts have examined the suit properly and comprehensively and dismissed it twice, the government has been challenging the rulings. The High Court has taken serious note of it and has come down heavily on the government for wasting the time and money of both the court and the government.

Unfortunately, Haryana is not alone in prolonging litigation. Punjab, too, is guilty of it. One may recall how the High Court had pulled up the Punjab government in 2004 for using litigation as a weapon to harass its staff and scuttle justice. In Vijay Kumar versus State of Punjab, the High Court had not only ordered the reinstatement of the dismissed employee but also awarded consequential benefits to the widow of the other sacked employee who died while fighting against injustice.

There is no doubt that the government is the biggest litigant today. The problem is particularly acute in Punjab and Haryana due to the large number of law officers in both states — 125 in Punjab and 100 in Haryana. These officers, appointed mostly on political patronage, hold various ranks such as Additional Advocate General, Senior Deputy AG, Deputy AG and Assistant AG. Surely, while the governments’ rationale of having such a huge contingent at a whopping cost to the state exchequer is questionable, the issue in question is that these officers do not seem to realise that law should be used as an instrument of redress rather than an instrument of witch-hunt, harassment and injustice. Litigation is baneful for both the government and the people. And the sooner the powers that be understand this, the better it will be for the country.

Thought for the Day

What a good thing Adam had. When he said a good thing he knew nobody had said it before. — Mark Twain

ARTICLE

Power to order CBI probe
Supreme Court settles the law
by V. Eshwar Anand

THE Supreme Court judgement that constitutional courts can order a CBI investigation into a serious cognisable offence without the consent of the state government concerned is a landmark ruling. The verdict given by a Constitution Bench consisting of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Justice R.V. Raveendran, Justice D.K. Jain, Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice J.M. Panchal addresses one of the most contentious issues that followed the Nandigram police firing when the Calcutta High Court ordered a CBI probe without consulting the state government.

A close look at the judgement suggests that the apex court’s rationale behind the ruling was to protect the citizens’ fundamental rights at any cost. The doctrine of separation of powers cannot curtail the power of judicial review of constitutional courts (i.e. the Supreme Court and the High Courts) in situations where civil liberties and fundamental rights were being violated, the Bench ruled.

The power of judicial review, vested in the Supreme Court and the High Courts under Articles 32 and 226 respectively, is an integral part of the Constitution, constituting part of its basic structure. Thus, the power of the apex court and the High Courts to test the constitutional validity of legislations “can never be ousted or abridged”, the Bench observed.

Under Article 245 of the Constitution, all legislative powers of Parliament or the state legislatures are expressly made subject to other provisions of the Constitution, including the rights conferred in Part III of the Constitution. If any of these rights are violated, the constitutional courts not only declare a law as unconstitutional but also enforce fundamental rights by issuing directions or writs in the nature of mandamus, certiorari, habeas corpus, prohibition or quo warranto.

Interestingly, the Bench referred to the then Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud’s ruling in the Minerva Mills case, who, speaking for the majority, observed that Articles 14 (right to equality) and 19 (fundamental rights) confer rights which are elementary for the proper and effective functioning of democracy. He said if the two Articles are “put out of operation”, Article 32 will be “drained out of its lifeblood”.

The Bench rejected the West Bengal government’s contention that clipping the state’s power of clearance for a CBI probe will violate the federal structure. On the contrary, it ruled that the Constitution protects the federal structure by ensuring that courts act as guardians and interpreters of the Constitution and provide remedy under Articles 32 and 226, whenever there is any “attempted violation.” It emphasised that the restriction on Parliament or state legislatures by the Constitution and curbs on the executive by Parliament under an enactment do not amount to a restriction on the judiciary’s power under Articles 32 and 226.

Equally significant is the observation that when the Delhi Police Special Establishment Act, 1948, itself provides that subject to the state’s consent, the CBI can take up investigation in relation to the crime which was otherwise within the state police’s jurisdiction, the court can also exercise its power of judicial review and direct the CBI to take up the investigation within the state’s jurisdiction. While the High Court’s power under Article 226 cannot be abridged or curtailed by Section 6 of the Delhi Police Special Establishment Act, the restriction imposed by this section on the Union’s powers cannot be read as restriction on the constitutional courts’ powers, the Bench observed.

Significantly, the Bench has prescribed some riders to constitutional courts in the exercise of the “extraordinary power” of ordering a CBI probe without the state governments’ consent. It ruled that the courts must use the power “sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional circumstances”; when it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations; when the incident may have national and international ramifications; and when it is necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing fundamental rights.

The Supreme Court was convinced that without these “self-imposed restrictions” on the exercise of powers by constitutional courts, the CBI would be flooded with cases and thus may find it difficult to investigate them properly and, in the process, “lose its credibility and purpose”.

At the same time, the court said that no “inflexible guidelines” could be laid down on when such power should be exercised. In other words, it decided on a general principle of law but left individual cases to Benches hearing them. It said the High Courts would have to weigh evidence before deciding if a case could be made out for a CBI probe.

Though the apex court has given its considered opinion on an important issue, the crux of the problem remains: how independent and autonomous is the CBI? For, the country’s premier investigating agency is considered more as the handmaiden of the Centre rather than an impartial body inspiring confidence. The CBI seems reluctant to probe allegations of corruption against the big fish. Its flip-flops in Bofors, Hawala, Taj Corridor and several other cases speaks volumes about its efficiency. That it is susceptible to pressures from the Centre can be proved by its questionable role in the Taj Corridor case, involving Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati. Both the NDA and the UPA-I governments used it to tame Ms Mayawati for her party’s crucial support to their respective governments.

In February 2009, the Supreme Court pulled up the CBI for “acting at the behest” of the Centre in the disproportionate assets case against former UP Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav and his relatives. It questioned the CBI’s rationale in seeking the Union Law Ministry’s “opinion” about withdrawal of its earlier application seeking to file the report on inquiry to the court. “Why did you file the interim application on the opinion of the Central government? It is incomprehensible”, the Bench observed.

Successive governments at the Centre have kept mum on the Supreme Court’s 1997 order recommending more autonomy to the CBI. It had also mandated the creation of a prosecution agency similar to that of the United Kingdom’s Director of Prosecutions to fix responsibility on individual officers in cases where poor investigation leads to acquittals.

The CBI’s increasing politicisation needs to be checked to restore the common man’s faith in fair investigation. The ideal solution would be to render complete autonomy to it on the lines of the Election Commission of India. As a first step, the Director’s primacy in the institution needs to be restored. At present, he is just an invitee (and not a full-fledged member) to the Central Vigilance Commission Board that selects IPS officers for senior positions in the CBI from states.

The Director’s appointment and service conditions as also of other officers should be completely freed of the executive control. And they must be selected by a collegium comprising the Vice-President, the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India, the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha. A similar mechanism should be evolved for the state investigating agencies also.

Worthy of mention in this context is the National Human Rights Commission’s submission in the Supreme Court emphasising the need for selecting top officers based on merit and experience rather than their political suitability. Policing and investigation will command credibility only when these agencies are treated essentially as instruments of law and not as the Centre’s tools.

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Working of the CBI (March 2008) has recommended that the CBI Director should be given the same status as that of his counterparts heading similar international organisations such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the United States. He should be given suitable powers and discretion to take on-the-spot decisions regarding vital proposals for improvement of infrastructure, methods of investigation, etc. His present sanction limit of Rs 30,000 is a pittance and he is hardly able to do justice to his work.

Over the years, the CBI’s workload has increased by leaps and bounds. Too many special courts have come up in states in addition to the increasing pressure on the agency’s offices in New Delhi and other zones. Yet, there has been no augmentation of its staff, infrastructure and resources. Implementation of the Parliamentary Standing Committee’s March 2008 recommendation for strengthening the CBI in terms of resources and legal mandate brooks no delay.

MIDDLE

Matters of heart, and court
by Justice S.D. Anand

The discharge of office duties can, apart from being professionally satisfying, provide a hilarious facet too. In spite of my handicap of not being able to read and write Urdu, I always had fondness for the language because of my father having been an avid lover of that language and also the Persian language.

I used to “satiate” my thirst for Urdu by going through the Hindi translations of Urdu literature which are available in the market. Once I came across a particular couplet which underlined that delay in the offering of a response to a romantic proposal could be tortuous to the proposing partner who would like to have a response, preferably in the affirmative, but would not mind a negative reaction too.

Human mind, by the very nature of things, displays ingenuity at times. Charged with the responsibility of monitoring the disposal of old cases, I found that quite a large number of the category were those which involved a controversy about emotional quotient and neither party was inclined for a delay. However, the vicissitudes of the law being what those are, things did get delayed by years.

The results of about a year-long monitoring were satisfying and a presentation was to be made to the boss (of the time). The Urdu couplet aforementioned was ready in my mind for being used at an appropriate moment which, obviously, had to be provided by the Urdu-loving boss.

An epitome of extreme kindness, sophistication and immaculate etiquettes that he was, any uninvited quotation could be chaotic and, in that eventuality, any damage-control exercise was inconceivable. Nevertheless, the desire was to have an inviting opportunity to punctuate the presentation with the couplet.

The disposal figures were indeed flattering qua the state under my supervision. The sense of relief and achievement was writ large on the face of the addressed authority.

The relevant dignitary, in a thoughtful tone, called upon me to say which exactly the litigant public expected from the judicial dispensation. God-sent opportunity was before me. Time to vomit the couplet, any further retention of which could cause emotional “indigestion”.

I informed, in a manner suggesting the immediate occurring of thought, that the litigant public would not mind a decision either way but that it must come about at the earliest:

“maine ye kab kaha ki mere haq mein ho jawab, lekin khamosh kyon hai koi faisla to dey”

(When did I insist upon a verdict favourable to me? I only want you to break your silence and decide either way).

The follow-up of the punctuated presentation is a privileged communication.

OPED

Maya is reasserting her Dalit identity
by Shahira Naim

ON March 15, the ruling Bahujan Samaj Party organised a huge rally in Lucknow to commemorate 25 years of the party. No one had foreseen that 25 years down the road this party started by Dalit visionary Kanshi Ram would become a formidable force to reckon with.

The BSP is now one of the seven national parties and the third largest one claiming 10 per cent of the vote share, has 21 seats in the Lok Sabha, six seats in the Rajya Sabha, 227 seats in the UP Vidhan Sabha of 404 and 56 MLCs in the 100-member Vidhan Parishad.

More important, the BSP has refused to play the power game by the established rules of the well-entrenched political elite. It has shown the courage of throwing the political rulebook out of the window. Sample this:

During the 1999 motion of confidence, the BSP was instrumental in bringing down the 13-month Atal Behari Vajpayee government. The five-member BSP had declared to abstain from voting describing both the BJP and the Congress as '”anti-Dalit”. In the last minute, it startled everyone by voting against the government, tilting the balance in favour of the Opposition.

The party led by its leading light Mayawati has assumed power on four occasions in Uttar Pradesh, thrice with the help of the BJP. Every BSP-BJP government has left the BSP stronger in terms of more seats in the Assembly and left the BJP further diminished in numbers.

In 1996, the BSP fought elections in alliance with Congress but formed a government with the BJP’s support. In 1984, no one could have predicted that the BSP would reinvent itself down the years to suit its strategic interest of capturing power.

The party’s predecessor, the Dalit Shishit Samaj Sangharsh Samiti, had aptly described what Bahujan Samaj stood for through its evocative slogan, Thakur Brahmin Bania Chod, baki sab hain DS4’. The other signature slogan raised in the mid-80s described the party’s attitude towards the non-bahujan samaj — Tilak, tarazu and talwar,isko maro joota char.

However, now the party officially stands for ‘Sarvjan hitay, sarvjan sukhay’. By 2006-07, keeping the exigencies of parliamentary politics in mind, the party firmly led by Chief Minister Mayawati had started experimenting with a new social engineering formula of wooing the same upper castes against which the BSP social movement had first been mobilised.

By returning to power in UP in 2007 with the support of upper castes, mainly Brahmins, the BSP rewrote history by becoming the first elected government in almost two decades to assume office on its own. More significantly, the BSP had metamorphosed to become another party altogether. While it is still called ‘Bahujan’, its political agenda ostensibly was ‘sarvjan’, the poor amongst the upper castes now held virtually the same status as Dalits, the OBCs and minorities in the public welfare programmes.

Another slogan was revised to accommodate the upper castes, mainly Brahmins to give them more than their fair share – be it seats in the Vidhan Sabha or Lok Sabha elections or even berths in the ministry. (For example, the Brahmins were allotted 25 per cent of the 80 Lok Sabha seats in 2009).

The slogan ‘Jiski jitni sankhya bhari, uski utni bhagidari’ (Every one’s share according to one’s numbers) was modified to suit the shifting philosophy of the party. The slogan now became ‘Jiski jitni hai taiyari, uski utni bhagidari’. (Every one’s share according to one’s preparation).

However, if 2007 election made the party scale new heights, the 2009 Lok Sabha election brought it back to the ground with a huge thud. The political scenario in the country, after the Left withdrew support from the UPA government, had suddenly catapulted BSP president Mayawati to the national scene. The Left front projected her as its prime ministerial candidate in case the UPA government was defeated on the floor of the House.

This mindset virtually dictated every decision of the party in the run-up to the general election 2009. It decided to take plunge in a big way in national politics by contesting most of the 543 Lok Sabha seats in the country without any pre-poll alliance and present itself as a viable political alternative at the national level. It saw itself emerging at least as the kingmaker, if not the Prime Minister, of the Third Front government.

For this BSP supremo Mayawati did not take a day’s break for 52 days. Every morning she set out for a remote corner of the country addressing rallies during the day and returning to Lucknow by night. But the returns she got for all her hard work were a shocker — 21 seats. Of this, 20 were in UP and one lone seat of Rewa in Madhya Pradesh. Mayawati’s ‘sarvjan’ BSP had been reduced to the third position in UP winning just 20 seats.

Once a party identified with the Dalit resurgence could return only two of the 17 Dalits (11.76 per cent) that it had fielded from as many reserved seats. Obviously, the Dalits fielded by the BSP did not get any help from the other communities there confirming that Mayawati’s social engineering has proved to be more of a figment of her imagination and rhetoric for her public meetings.

The Lok Sabha results have resulted in some serious introspection within the party. As a first step, Mayawati scrapped all the bhaichara (caste) committees formed to enforce the concept of social engineering. At every forum, she pro-actively reiterates her Dalit identity. While the high profile Brahmins in her party and ministry have not been removed, their role has definitely been downsized.

Mayawati has learnt it the hard way that if the BSP is to remain a significant player in national politics, she can ill-afford to neglect her core constituency — the Dalits.

Her commitment to construct various parks and memorials to commemorate the Dalit icons in history even at the cost of her government can only be understood in this perspective.

Fighting crime is clever marketing
by Claire Beale

ISN’T it interesting that it’s taken vulnerable corporate balance sheets to really get big businesses thinking carefully about how to make life better Adland’s cynics had expected the recession to put a brake on all those fluffy marketing initiatives designed to tell consumers how green and caring the world’s biggest brands really are. But what's actually happened is that “giving something back” has become a new marketing battleground.

The marketing industry calls it corporate social responsibility (CSR). CSR is an ugly little tag that belies a rather wonderful thing: big companies using some of the profits they earn to make our world a better place to live in.

From planting trees to funding grass-roots sport, you’ll struggle to find a big business these days that doesn’t proudly display its CSR policy alongside its corporate mission statement and financial results.

Only last week the mobile phone company O2 announced it would be giving kids payouts of (pounds sterling) 300 to fund projects that will improve their social environment, such as creating community gardens, fighting knife crime and launching sports clubs. It’s called Think Big and there’s a (pounds sterling) 5m fund for good causes — more if the idea is a success.

Now, is that your cynical muscle I see twitching? Surely you don’t think O2s just trying to better rival Orange’s excellent Rockcorps initiative which asks young people to give four hours of their time to a community project in return for exclusive gig tickets, or a cunning ploy to lock-in young consumers.

Ronan Dunne, O2's chief, knows what you're all thinking. “I don’t expect to sell a single additional phone on the back of this," he insists. “What I do want people to say is that O2 is a company they want to do business with.” The fact is, Think Big is a shrewd way of attracting and keeping young customers and an utterly laudable investment in local communities. If O2 earns new customers out of it, all the better — that way it’s even more likely to persevere.

Of course there’s nothing new about big business philanthropy. Cadbury has been doing it for nearly 200 years and built its business around campaigning against slavery, for better housing and sanitation and a more environmentally sensitive approach to industrial development.

But CSR does particularly suit the digital age, when big companies and the way they conduct their business are so utterly exposed to interrogation by consumers. Consumers are increasingly choosing to spend their money with those companies they know will divert some of it back into making a positive contribution to the environment or society.

And modern marketing is now absolutely about building relationships with customers. At best those relationships move beyond the buyer/seller paradigm into a more holistic partnership with consumers, where the brand acts as a facilitator of useful products and services that society might not otherwise be able to provide.

What’s also interesting is that careful advertisers are now expecting their ad agencies to embrace CSR every bit as enthusiastically. When one of the world’s biggest media agencies, MPG, recently made 50 redundancies in the US, the socialist/anarchist group Industrial Workers of the World rose up to protest.
But it wasn’t MPG but one of MPG’s clients, the department store chain Kmart, which found itself under attack. IWW protesters brandished banners proclaiming “Shame on Kmart. Drop MPG” outside Kmart’s offices.

In a climate when big businesses are ever more fearful of upsetting anybody at all, this sort of protest means that clients are beginning to demand that their suppliers n ad agencies included n are as ethical and community-minded as possible.

Quite right. At a time when the ad industry is trying to defend itself on issues such as alcohol commercials and advertising to children, a little bit more social responsibility is rather overdue.

By arrangement with The Independent

Delhi Durbar
BSNL rescue operation

The happenings in the country’s largest public sector telecom company BSNL have had market analysts sit up and monitor the situation closely.

There is a growing feeling that the state-owned telecom operator may soon go the Indian Airlines-Air India way and end up with huge losses, despite being in profit once.

In the absence of proper planning and clearances from the government, it has not only lost its place of pride in the world’s fastest growing telecom market but is also finding itself unable to put in place its expansion plans.

Analysts feel that if a “rescue BSNL” operation is not launched soon, the telecom behemoth may soon end losing its present subscriber base also.

The latest example of its confused policy is the pulling of the public sector operator from the race of acquiring a majority stake in Zambia Telecommunications, or Zamtel.

Punjab policy upheld

The Supreme Court judges often caution the press against drawing inferences from their queries to litigants during hearings. They say that they put questions to have their doubts clarified and sometimes the queries may appear to be going in favour of a particular litigant. But this is not necessarily indicative of the opinion formed by the judges.

This is exactly what happened in a recent case involving those who tried to get residential plots in Mohali industrial area. The Bench put several questions to the counsel for the Punjab government and the State Industrial Export Corporation during the hearing. The claimants to the plots would have felt that the case was headed in their favour. But when the verdict was pronounced last week, the Bench upheld the state’s policy of restricting housing in industrial areas. Of course, the Bench did not change its view that the PSIEC had allotted the plots in haste without waiting for the state’s approval for change in land use.

Toothpick does the trick

The Press Club in Delhi has a small computer room attached to it for nearly two years to help journalists perform their duties. Earlier, the club management had hired an employee to run the computer room and charge a nominal amount from journalists for using the facility. But since the earning was not much, the club management decided to do away with the services of this employee and run the computer room on voluntary contributions from journalists.

A small plastic box was kept in the computer room for voluntary contributions by members. Some members did put Rs 10, Rs 20 and Rs 50 currency notes in the box.

However, one fine morning, the club management, much to its surprise, noticed that some enterprising individual, using toothpicks, had taken out the money from the box.

Contributed by Girja Shankar Kaura, R. Sedhuraman and Ashok Tuteja

Corrections and clarifications

n The caption of the photograph on page 5 of The Tribune on March 15 with the story “Clash over control of gurdwara” should have been: “Members of one of the two warring communities being prevented by the police from marching towards the site of tension in Noorwala on Sunday”. The word “intercepted” was not appropriate.

n The time of sunrise and sunset mentioned in the columns “Weather” and “Calendar” was different on March 13.

n In Chandigarh Tribune page 4 on March 13, the headline “Tax assesses a worried lot” should have been “Tax assessees…”

n The two blurbs on page 1 of Lifestyle on March 15 had spelling and grammatical errors. Travelling was spelt with a single “l” and it went on to say that “the BBC are exploring the world”. It should have been “the BBC (name of a musical band) is exploring the world”. Again, another blurb said “Rajan and Sajan Mishra shares their views”. It should have been “share their views”.

n In Lifestyle Part I on March 14, the blurb on page 4 said: “Braman Bandhus, talks about the classical music from the North East”. There was no need for a comma after Bandhus, and it should have been “talk”, not “talks”.

n In Lifestyle Part II on March 14, the blurb on page 1 said: “Its not flashy”. It should have been “It’s not flashy”.

Despite our earnest endeavour to keep The Tribune error-free, some errors do creep in at times. We are always eager to correct them.

This column appears twice a week — every Tuesday and Friday. We request our readers to write or e-mail to us whenever they find any error.

Readers in such cases can write to Mr Kamlendra Kanwar, Senior Associate Editor, The Tribune, Chandigarh, with the word “Corrections” on the envelope. His e-mail ID is kanwar@tribunemail.com.

Raj Chengappa Editor-in-Chief