Karnataka’s Rajya Sabha choices: Questions Remain
Four candidates have been elected unanimously to the Rajya Sabha from the Karnataka in the biennial polls held recently. A matter of consolation this time is that all the four are from Karnataka. Political parties have for long used the Rajya Sabha for the back-door entry of candidates who cannot win direct elections to the hallowed portals of Parliament. Political parties also strangely hold the view that Rajya Sabha members from a state need not be from that state, which helped many candidates from other states to get elected to the Rajya Sabha from Karnataka. And more often than not, the contribution of such candidates to Karnataka has been zero. In fact, many Rajya Sabha MPs elected from the state have spoken in favor of other states such as Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. As this trend had drawn the ire of Kannada organizations in the past, political parties have now started giving a serious thought to the selection of candidates.
Of the four candidates elected this time, two are senior leaders from the JDS and the Congress and the other two representing the BJP are new faces. The BJP is taking credit for electing grass-root workers of the party to the Rajya Sabha. The JDS, however, claims that selecting local-level workers does not fulfill any objective if they are not able to effectively represent the state’s interest in the Rajya Sabha. The party’s argument is that those elected to the Rajya Sabha should be seasoned politicians who can raise their voices on the issues before the state. While there is a grain of truth in both the arguments, they are equally shallow.
In the Parliamentary system, the Lok Sabha is called as the Lower House and the Rajya Sabha, the Upper House, indicating the significance of both the houses. Though the Lower House plays a more decisive role in governance, the Upper House cannot be neglected. The Upper House exists to guide the Lower House and its functioning whose representatives are usually inexperienced and lack administrative acumen. It is therefore important that candidates to the Rajya Sabha have experience in different fields. If the Lok Sabha has to proceed in the right direction, experts in various fields, thinkers, and a collection of bright minds should be seated in the Rajya Sabha. Only then the objective of having a Rajya Sabha – the House of Elders – will be fulfilled. However, political parties have been using the Rajya Sabha membership as a reward to workers and leaders who cannot contest and win direct elections to the Lok Sabha and the Legislative Assembly.
There cannot be any doubt that Parliament needs seasoned politicians such as Mallikarjun Kharge of the Congress and Janata Dal’s Deve Gowda. The choice of the Congress and the JD(S) therefore makes good sense. At the same time, the BJP has done well by showing the powerful lobbies of senior leaders their place and by favouring two hitherto unknown district-level functionaries. But the decision of all the three parties raise many questions.
If the BJP were to give an opportunity for ordinary party workers to contest Lok Sabha or Assembly elections, the decision could have been lauded. But how fair is the party’s stand of giving ‘tickets to the winning candidates’ during Lok Sabha and Assembly elections and ‘recognizing party workers’ when it comes to selecting candidates for Rajya Sabha elections? Doesn’t the selection of inexperienced persons to the Rajya Sabha defeat the purpose of the Upper House which is meant to be the preserve of the seasoned and the experienced? How far will such inexperienced party workers succeed in guiding the young MPs in Lok Sabha?
At the same time, how valid is the stand of the JDS that it had made the right choice in Deve Gowda? No doubt, Deve Gowda has on many occasions effectively fought for the interests of the state in Parliament, including the Cauvery river issue. However, now he is on the threshold of 87 years. Will his age not work against him? Does it mean that the party is openly admitting that it has a paucity of seasoned politicians other than the former prime minister? With the Corona virus spreading all over the country, health experts are warning that it is dangerous for senior citizens to be active in public. If the Congress and JDS had encouraged and groomed youngsters, would they have been facing the situation of having to choose aged politicians with health issues?
BJP has in its fold several seasoned and experienced thinkers and politicians. The party could have given its grass-roots workers ticket to contest the Lok Sabha or Assembly seats and sent seasoned politicians to the Rajya Sabha. The JDS, on the other hand, could have selected a candidate such as former MLA Y.S.V. Dutta to the Rajya Sabha instead of imposing on Deve Gowda the pressures of being a Rajya Sabha member. Of all the candidates selected to the Rajya Sabha, the selection of Kharge seems fair but at 77, the age is a factor to be considered in his case too. The Congress should also identify and recognize other seasoned leaders who can take Kharge’s place.
When it is becoming increasingly important for the Rajya Sabha to include experienced and seasoned political faces to correct the Lok Sabha which is going astray because of its financial might, it is difficult to accept the selection of these four candidates.
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.
