The ‘full term’ decision of the coalition government
We all are well aware of the fact that state has a coalition government. It would be partial truth to say this government came to this agreement because they wanted to keep BJP out of power. Some people wanted to keep Siddaramaiah out of the power circles too. The results were conducive for that. If this coalition didn’t happen, would the JD(S) still maintain a distance from BJP? This question has no easy answer. Though Devegowda had said they would stay far from BJP, Kumaraswamy hadn’t bolstered it with his statement. He followed the wait and watch method. Even if JD(S) maintained a distance, the party feared that BJP would split their party and come to power. Congress stretched the hand of coalition having realized BJP would take the same route to form the government.
The desperation on this was so much that when Cong accepted HD Kumaraswamy as CM of the coalition government, the party didn’t have clarity on the aspect of whether he’d be the full term CM or for some particular time frame in the five years tenure they have. It has just been days since the coalition government has come into existence, the discussion on whether HDK is a full term CM is coming to the forefront. If this question has not been dealt with right now, this would definitely end the coalition government rather unceremoniously.
Was it imperative for Cong to join hands with JD(S) is the primary question. Even if JD(S) and BJP had formed the government, they would have never offered CM’s seat to HDK is the biggest truth. While accepting the ‘terms and conditions’; Cong should have negotiated clarity on whether it would be partial time by both parties in the CM’s chair. Both parties should have known keeping BJP out of power is important for both. But the results pushed DK Shivakumar and Parameshwar to be inevitable candidates. Siddu’s grip loosened on Cong and DKS held the reins. If JD(S) stretches hand of coalition with BJP, DKS and Parameshwar would have lost the opportunity. Hence, it was important to form the government immediately. And the ‘term’ discussion is in the forefront only now. While Parameshwar has said no decision has been taken on ‘full term CM’, HDK has been stating he would be the CM for the entire term. Siddu also reiterated Parameshwar’s words after discussion with high command of his party and said full term CM is something that wasn’t discussed earlier. That may mean HDK would have to vacate the seat after half a term. But Kumaraswamy has gone silent over the matter now. The silence is rather strategic too.
In less than 3 days of being in power, HDK has already spoken about ‘resignation’ because he feels he is at the beck and call of Cong High command and not that of the people of the state. ‘Loan waiver cannot be done in 24 hours. Farmers need to give me more time. If not, I’d waive off the loans,’ he says. Indirectly, he has indicated Cong is against loan waiver decision. ‘Beck and call’ words are against the spirit of democracy. Hence CM HDK has taken the voters and put them in the witness box. He says he does not need to be indebted to them because they didn’t give him majority seats. That he cannot waive off the loans in 24 hours is a fact.
HDK must have known he’d never get the majority to waive off loans, hence this promise was probably made in overconfidence. Today HDK sits in the CM’s chair owing to his own reputation, and not as a Cong man. If people wished for it, they could have given a massive blow to HDK by rejecting him and giving majority to BJP too. Hence HDK should know he is to be accountable to people of the state, and not Cong high command. To seek time to execute loan waiver is what a seasoned politician would do. The new CM has also threatened them with ‘resignation’ demon. Should the coalition government collapse tomorrow, HDK has already prepared his own pitch. This is an indirect warning to Cong too.
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.
