Do not insult the constitution
In the recent past, some esteemed Judges had cautioned against the subverting of constitution and the powers granted by the constitution. They had felt ever since BJP came to power in the centre, democracy was under threat. Extra constitutional powers were constantly attempting to destabilize the democracy and democratic institutions. Today, assembly elections in Karnataka are a big example of this subversion in progress. It is no secret that the raids conducted in the run up to the elections using IT and other agencies were done for political reasons. Even after all this, BJP didn’t get a full majority, but had to be satisfied with 104 seats, at least nine seats short of the majority. Now the governor Vajubhai Vala has invited B S Yeddyurappa, the Karnataka leader of this party to form the government. This has obviously created anxiety among activists who fight to retain the spirit of democracy. Opinions that governor’s decision to allow one party to form the government and then take time or be given time to prove majority on the floor will give rise to ‘horse trading’ are not too far from the truth either. HD Kumaraswamy of JD(S) has already said his party members are being offered Rs 100 crore to defect and join the BJP.
One interpretation is that BJP legislative party leader BS Yeddyurappa is being invited to form the government against the people’s mandate since the party did not get absolute majority. This morning he may even take oath to the office of the Chief Minister of Karnataka. If this happens, it would create a very bad precedence. The governor may claim he invited the single largest party to form the government with 104 members. If this was the case, why was it not followed in the case of Goa which has 40 seats where Congress was in majority with 17 members over the BJP and its allies? When this matter was taken to the Supreme Court, even the court upheld the decision of the governor. The same case repeated in Manipur where Cong emerged as the single largest party. BJP with just two members was allowed to form the government with allies. Meghalaya too favoured Congress with 21 seats, but the party was denied the opportunity to form the government. BJP and allies formed the government there too. Union minister Jaitley said this was a constitutionally appropriate measure. Same thing repeated in Nagaland too where Cong emerged as the biggest party but was denied the opportunity to form the government. But one needs to know why the same rule cannot be applied in Karnataka too? JD(S) and Congress together have submitted a list of MLAs in their support to the governor, to stake claim to form a government. Governor needs to give them an opportunity to show solidarity at least. But then this is not being done.
Elected governments have to be formed under the very rules laid down by the constitution. But the happenings after the conclusion of assembly elections in Karnataka are quite appalling. The person who occupies the chair of a prime minister says he would not allow the JD(S) and Congress to form the government. This amounts to directly influencing the governor who has invited the party without majority to form the government. All these aspects do not hold up the spirit of democracy. The governor is not concerned about how the leader of this party would even prove majority on the floor later. Because there are not too many independent MLAs in Karnataka at the moment except for one and that number is not sufficient to achieve majority.
Now horse trading will have to be done between JD(S) and Congress MLAs. This move by the governor will give rise to all probabilities of this happening. Amit Shah is in Karnataka to achieve this very goal. Though no party has got absolute majority, nearly 64% of the voters have favoured secular parties. BJP could secure only 36.2% votes among the ones polled. Now when secular forces have come together to form the government, the governor should allow this to happen acting in the spirit of democracy. But the governor Vajubhai Vala comes from the Sangh Parivar background and was a minister in PM Narendra Modi’s government. But whatever be his history, he has to be impartial when he sits in the office of the governor. There are many examples on how a governor should take decisions in political situations like this. In 1998 when a similar situation had arisen, President K R Narayanan had allowed time to Atal Behari Vajpayee’s government to prove majority on the floor. Then the BJP had accepted this. Even now, the same parameter must be followed, Kumaraswamy and his allies should be allowed to form the government. Else, he would be committing a major blunder on this matter and would be failing the constitution as well as democracy.
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.
CJI calls for 'unified judicial policy', use of technology to converge practices across courts
Jaisalmer (PTI): Pushing for a "unified judicial policy", Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Saturday said technology can help align standards and practices across courts, creating a "seamless experience" for citizens, regardless of their location.
He said high courts -- due to the federal structure -- have had their own practices and technological capacities, and "regional barriers" can be broken down with technology to create a more unified judicial ecosystem.
Delivering the keynote address at the West Zone Regional Conference in Jaisalmer, Kant proposed the idea of a "national judicial ecosystem" and called for an overhaul of India's judicial system with the integration of technology.
"Today, as technology reduces geographical barriers and enables convergence, it invites us to think of justice not as regional systems operating in parallel, but as one national ecosystem with shared standards, seamless interfaces, and coordinated goals," he said.
He emphasised how the role of technology in the judiciary has evolved over time.
"Technology is no longer merely an administrative convenience. It has evolved into a constitutional instrument that strengthens equality before the law, expands access to justice, and enhances institutional efficiency," he said, highlighting how digital tools can bridge gaps in the judicial system.
Kant pointed out that technology enables the judiciary to overcome the limitations of physical distance and bureaucratic hurdles.
"It allows the judiciary to transcend physical barriers and bureaucratic rigidities to deliver outcomes that are timely, transparent and principled," he said, adding that the effective use of technology can modernise the delivery of justice and make it more accessible to citizens across the country.
The CJI called for implementing a "unified judicial policy".
He said India's judicial system has long been shaped by its federal structure, and different high courts have their own practices and technological capacities.
"India's vast diversity has led to different high courts evolving their own practices, administrative priorities and technological capacities. This variation, though natural in a federal democracy, has resulted in uneven experiences for litigants across the country," he said.
Kant underscored that predictability is crucial for building trust in the judicial system.
"A core expectation citizens place upon the courts is predictability," he said, adding that citizens should not only expect fair treatment but also consistency in how cases are handled across the country.
He pointed to the potential of technology in improving predictability.
"Technology enables us to track systemic delays and make problems visible rather than concealed," he said.
By identifying areas where delays occur, such as in bail matters or cases involving certain types of disputes, courts can take targeted action to address these issues and improve efficiency, Kant said.
The CJI explained that data-driven tools could identify the reasons behind delays or bottlenecks, allowing for faster, more focused solutions.
"Technology enables prioritisation by flagging sensitive case categories, monitoring pendency in real time and ensuring transparent listing protocols," he said.
Justice Surya Kant also discussed the importance of prioritising urgent cases where delays could result in significant harm. He highlighted his recent administrative order that ensures urgent cases, such as bail petitions or habeas corpus cases, are listed within two days of curing defects.
"Where delay causes deep harm, the system must respond with urgency," he stated, explaining that technology can help courts identify and expedite such cases.
Kant also raised the issue of the clarity of judicial decisions.
He noted that many litigants, despite winning cases, often struggle to understand the terms of their judgment due to complex legal language.
"Although the orders had gone in their favour, they remained unsure of what relief they had actually secured because the language was too technical, vague or evasive to understand," he said.
He advocated for more uniformity in how judgments are written.
"A unified judicial approach must therefore extend to how we communicate outcomes," he said.
The CJI also discussed the role of AI and digital tools in improving case management. He pointed to the potential of AI-based research assistants and digital case management systems to streamline judicial processes.
"Emerging technological tools are now capable of performing once-unthinkable functions. They can highlight missing precedent references, cluster similar legal questions, and simplify factual narration," he said, explaining how these technologies can help judges make more consistent decisions.
He also highlighted tools like the National Judicial Data Grid and e-courts, which are already helping to standardise processes like case filings and tracking.
Kant reiterated that the integration of technology into the judicial process is not just about improving efficiency but about upholding the integrity of the system and strengthening public trust.
"The measure of innovation is not the complexity of the software we deploy, but the simplicity with which a citizen understands the outcome of their case and believes that justice has been served," he said.
