Congress included, opposition parties need to unite
The results of five state assembly elections has given a new lease of hope to opposition parties, simultaneously descending a pall of gloom on BJP over its dismal performance. Had these states been won by BJP, the hope of Operation Lotus would have received some boost in Karnataka too.
Yeddyurappa would have started some ground work with a fond hope of being reinstated as the CM again. The mine mafia was all set to throw money around to ensure this would happen. But since these states gave their verdict in the opposite direction, the pipe dream of BJP leaders is now forced to remain. So these results have given the opposition parties a new hope to build something on.
A good unity and possibility of a coalition among them is all very inevitable now. Earlier, Communist leader such as Harkishan Singh Surjeet would take the lead in ensuring there is a good understanding between parties in such situations. There were leaders such as Jyoti Basu. But none of them exist now. Left parties aren’t playing a major role in the country’s politics. Hence, to bring the opposition parties together, Andhra CM Chandrababu Naidu has set the ball in motion.
After the BJP assumed power in the centre, constitutional aided administration has been severely compromised upon. Premier institutions like CBI, RBI and the other autonomous institutions have also been meddled with, by the government.
At times like this, secular federations, organisations and parties have to come together to achieve a single objective and offer pro-people programmes to achieve some core goals. No single party can ever hope to tame the tentacles of this octopus called corporate sector that has encouraged the majority communalism along with funding the BJP.
But there are naturally many issues with such a coalition coming together. In the undivided Andhra, Telugu Desam and TRS do not have a conducive understanding with each other. Congress is the main opposition for the ruling left parties in Bengal and CPM in Kerala. They both are willing to come together against a common enemy. If the opposition parties come together putting behind their differences, they can defeat the communal BJP and its allies in no time.
But then if Modi succeeds in clinching the power second time over, the efforts to create an RSS-specific Hindu Rashtra will intensify with no holds barred. If this is to be stopped, the opposition parties have to come together. This should not be a convenient arrangement but an honest one. Former PM Deve Gowda has to take the lead in this. CPIM secretary Sitaram Yechury must allow such a possibility to take shape. Mayawati’s BSP is also thinking on those lines.
Now their Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh units have already declared their support to Congress to form the government. Stalin of DMK, Chandrababu Naidu and TSR also have a very significant role to play. BJP may have lost in five states, but it will not keep quiet in Lok Sabha elections. The coming together of opposition parties is inevitable if the country is not to be submitted to fascists.
Congress needs to change its approach. It is going back to a lethargic approach soon as it has delivered a victory. It forgets the danger communal forces pose to the society and makes space for only opportunists. Former CM Siddaramaiah has said this is not the time to celebrate victory but to stand firmly against communal forces and fight them back. Congress has to strengthen its base of activists and party workers at cadre levels. They have to be informed about the secular credentials of the party. It should not stick to the dual stance it is exhibiting in the case of women’s entry into Sabarimala in Kerala where Congress seems to have joined hands with BJP to keep women out against the SC rule. This is opportunistic politics. Congress must think about a united opposition front at times of challenge like this.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Justice Nagarathna calls for creation of judicial reforms commission to reduce pendency in courts
Bengaluru (PTI): Justice B V Nagarathna of the Supreme Court on Saturday called for the creation of a judicial reforms commission to reduce mounting pendency in the courts, saying systemic incentives across stakeholders were contributing to delays in justice delivery.
She was speaking at the Supreme Court Bar Association's (SCBA) first National Conference on the theme "Reimagining judicial governance: strengthening institutions for democratic justice" here.
Nagarathna, who was part of the panel session addressing "From Pendency to Prompt Justice: Rethinking Justice Delivery in Indian Courts," said, this reforms commission must have membership not only from the judiciary of the Supreme Court, the High Court, as well as the District judiciary, but also have members from the Bar, Attorney General, Solicitor General, and also certain members representing the Bar at the institutional level, such as the Bar President, and from the government side to enable an inter-institutional dialogue on reducing pendency.
She reflected that, from the point of view of various stakeholders, a litigant gains from the status quo, to proceed to prolong proceedings.
ALSO READ: A political legacy, but no win yet: Padmaja Venugopal''s new fight in Thrissur
"A lawyer or an advocate loves adjournments and postponement because he/she benefits from per appearance and extended timelines. A government department reduces bureaucratic risk by appealing rather than accepting defeat.
"A judge, and particularly a trial judge, is always acting with caution because he/she is confronted with appellate reversal, and therefore he/she prefers procedural caution rather than having an aggressive docket control. Each of these decisions is individually rational, but how does it help the system? It is only leading to systemic delay," she added.
In order to break this equilibrium, Justice Nagarathna said that what is required is institutional interventions through a judicial commission to reduce pendency, rather than merely exhorting better conduct from judges, adherence to procedural timelines, asking advocates not to seek adjournments, urging the government to reduce litigation, or expecting courts to function round the clock and judges not to take leave.
On pendency, the judge questioned the inclusion of defective filings in court statistics, suggesting that such cases should not be counted until they are procedurally ready for hearing.
She also underlined the role of the government as the "largest generator of litigation", noting that officials tend to file appeals to avoid scrutiny, even in cases where disputes could be settled earlier. This, she said, results in cases travelling through multiple judicial levels unnecessarily.
"The government publicly expresses concern about judicial backlog, while simultaneously feeding that backlog through relentless litigation," she observed.
Justice Nagarathna further claimed judicial capacity is constrained by inadequate public investment, including delays in appointment of judges, lack of infrastructure and insufficient use of technology.
Among the measures suggested, she called for improved case management, curbs on unnecessary adjournments, adoption of technology, prioritisation of cases, promotion of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and creation of specialised benches.
She also urged advocates to adhere to professional and ethical standards, litigants to avoid frivolous appeals, and the government to adopt a practical litigation policy and ensure timely funding and appointments in the judiciary.
