Criminalisation of politics has to end
Politics has come a long way from the one that was practiced by Gandhi, Nehru and AKG. It has been at least three decades since money and muscle power has been dictating the terms of politics in the country. Our assemblies have become safe haven for criminals after globalisation, liberalization and privatization set in.
According to a report by the Association for Democratic Research one third of our politicians in both houses are facing serious criminal allegations against them.
About 35 % of the chief ministers are facing serious criminal cases. This news is very detrimental to India's democracy. In this context the Supreme Court has said the Parliament should draught a policy that would discourage people with criminal cases or background from contesting in the elections. General or Assembly Elections being Far Cry people are finding it difficult to even contest the local elections without the power of money and muscle in this background Supreme court's ruling is more than welcome.
Everybody Talks about decriminalising the politics. But nobody has the solution to achieve this goal. Which is why the Supreme Court has thrown this ball into the court of the Parliament.
People with backgrounds in real estate stone and sand mafias are easily winning elections. This is causing massive disturbance in the tectonic plates of democracy. This is the reason supreme court has to enter into the scene and protect the sanctity of a democratic process. Is criminalisation of politics has occupied Panchayat level elections to Parliament level elections as well. People spend crores to contest urban body elections such as panchayat or municipality. One cannot even imagine how much would the general and assembly election candidates spend on their campaigning and related expenses.
According to an estimate, on an average, each candidate could be spending more than Rs 30 crore on the least possible estimate. A liberal estimate would shock the sane people into distress.
The one who spend money like water will ensure they make at least 100 times more than what they were forced to spend to win elections once they assume power. Majority of them would most certainly have criminal backgrounds. It is not easy to get them on track. During the government that ruled Karnataka between 2008 and 2013, people with criminal background occupied vantage positions. The ones who ran Ballari republic had posed a serious threat to democratic mode of administration in the state. This mining mafia had used its office and power to cover its illegal activities. This is not restricted to Karnataka alone. Such mafias control the Democratic institutions across India and in some cases across the world too. Having tasted the heady power, this mafia tried to alter electoral process and win last elections. Even now they try to buy over elected representatives to upset the current government. This being the reality, cleaning up politics is not an easy task even when the Supreme Court says so.
When all houses and assemblies are filled with elected representatives with criminal background, it's not only difficult to control their existence but also the entry of more such persons into mainstream politics. Drafting a policy is just one part of the challenge. It is essential to bring integrated change in electoral politics. People or voters also have a duty of rejecting candidates with criminal backgrounds. Political parties should deny tickets for candidates with criminal background.
This is not just the question of politics but a larger issue of national interest as well. Today this country needs clean politics more than ever. The poorest of the poor, farmers, Dalits, and common people have strived hard to protect this country's democracy. People will have to take proactive approach towards cleaning up the politics of this country. This problem will never be remedied by elected representatives, if we leave it to them. People will have to ensure mining and sand mafia beneficiaries, real estate thugs and evil communal politicians do not enter the temples of democracy.
People have to be made aware of their responsibility in this regard.
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.
