NATION

At sixes and sevens
The Law Ministry failed to defend the government policies effectively in the SC
By V. Eshwar Anand

ON trial: The Supreme Court kept the government on its toes

It was not a happy year for the Union Law Ministry. It has been at sixes and sevens, drawing flak from the Supreme Court, in one case or the other. The peremptory replacement of Dr M. Veerappa Moily with Salman Khurshid as the new Law Minister in July in a mini-Cabinet reshuffle was the high point of the year.

Dr Moily’s exit came in the wake of Solicitor-General of India Gopal Subramanium’s resignation following the Law Ministry’s decision to appoint a private counsel to appear for the Government of India before the Supreme Court over the telecom scandal without taking him (Subramanium) into confidence.

Subramanium, who had been appearing for the government in the 2G cases in the Supreme Court, had protested against the appointment of Rohington Nariman (currently the Solicitor-General of India and son of eminent jurist Fali S. Nariman) as the counsel for the Union of India to appear in a PIL by an NGO against Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal, reportedly without his consent. Despite the Prime Minister and Khurshid’s request not to press for his resignation, Subramanium did not relent.

Though Dr Moily insisted that he had not been "slighted" following his shifting to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, he did refer to a "campaign by vested interests" to oust him from the Law Ministry. Apparently, one reason for his exit was the Law Ministry’s failure to present the government’s policies effectively in the Supreme Court in cases such as 2G Spectrum, black money and Salwa Judum.

Ever since he took charge, Khurshid has been busy with not only the high-profile cases in the Supreme Court but also presenting the government’s views on important issues like the Lokpal Bill to the media and various other fora with characteristic aplomb. Suave and sophisticated, he is one of the trusted aides of the Prime Minister. He may not have made any major policy announcement in the past six months. However, he has been pursuing a number of important reforms to their logical conclusion, some of which were initiated by his predecessor. Of course, the ensuing Assembly elections in Uttar Pradesh are encroaching upon his time.

Corruption in the higher judiciary had also engaged the attention of the Law Ministry in 2011. Parliament could not impeach Sikkim High Court Chief Justice P. D. Dinakaran and Calcutta High Court Judge Justice Soumitra Sen, as both resigned, making the motions of impeachment against them infructuous. The Law Minister feels that the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill is only part of the judicial reforms process. As the judges’ appointment by the Supreme Court Collegium as also their conduct are important, too, the Law Ministry would study the National Judicial Commission proposal and go by consensus.

In any case, the government is going ahead with the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, as Khurshid feels that it cannot be held over for the "larger judicial reforms."

The Law Ministry is also going ahead with comprehensive electoral reforms, which were initiated by Dr Moily in consultation with Chief Election Commissioner Dr S.Y. Quraishi. Khurshid has hinted at an all-party meeting to examine the demand for the right to recall representatives and the right to reject candidates in elections.

It is also proposing radical reforms to ensure the decriminalisation of politics. The Prime Minister’s Office has asked the Law Ministry to consider the proposal that a person once convicted by any court of law should be disqualified from elections until he or she is acquitted by a higher court of law. The Bill intends to bar those facing trial in serious and heinous offences such as murder, rape and dacoity from contesting elections till the trial court acquits them.

HOME