polity aug 22 to 31

8/10/2019 Polity Aug 22 to 31

1/25

KIIWpolity Aug 22 to 31

8/10/2019 Polity Aug 22 to 31

2/25

KIIW

Notes by vineetpunnoose on www.kiwipaper.com

Content

Saving Sharmila 1

A democracy of armed soldiers 1

Humanising the law 1

Politics and criminality 2

SC to interpret LoP provision for Lokpal selection 3

Supreme Court judgment breaks from tradition 3

National Judicial Appointments Commission 4

Judicial appointments not above reproach 6

Don't close the door on NJAC as yet 7

Yardstick for judiciary should also apply for ministers: SC 8

No Cure for the Malaise 9

'Does NJAC Bill curb independence of judiciary?' 9

Constitutional duty underlined 10

Safeguarding judicial autonomy 10

Stop parading accused before media, says Supreme Court 12

Secularism must be for all: N. Ram 13

A republic of sub-nations? 13

Supreme Court terms pleas against NJAC premature 14

8/10/2019 Polity Aug 22 to 31

3/25

KIIW

Notes by vineetpunnoose on www.kiwipaper.com

Content

Talk to ease tensions 14

Some distinctly anti-federal rumblings 15

DoPT to notify amendments to Lokpal search panel mandate 15

Justice restored 15

Set minimum qualification for MPs, MLAs: SC 17

Govt sets up committee to identify outdated laws 17

Tilting at the Windmills (Again) 18

New Holistic Fertiliser Policy to be Unveiled 19

Off With Its Head 19

Conflicts within 20

Regulating India's nuclear estate 20

Mudgal committee files report on IPL scandal 21

New health policy to address health issues of young modern women Best way to kee 21

shape is through Yoga: Dr Vardhan 21

Aadhaar not mandatory to open bank account under Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan scheme 22

8/10/2019 Polity Aug 22 to 31

4/25

KIIW

Notes by vineetpunnoose on www.kiwipaper.com Page 1

Saving Sharmila Sat, Aug 30, 2014AFSPA, EPW, polity, Irom Sharmila,

For resorting to a form of protest that is used not just in India but also in many other parts

of the world, Sharmila was arrested, charged under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code

( IPC ) for attempting to commit suicide, and force-fed through a nasal tube The law has

been in force in Manipur since 1958 when it was enacted. It is operative in the entire state,

barring seven assembly constituencies around Imphal, from where it was withdrawn in

2012. Currently the Supreme Court is hearing a petition filed by Extra Judicial Execution

Victim Families Association ( EEVFAM ) that has recorded 1,590 cases of disappearances

and encounter killings since the 1980 s . Filed in 2012, the petition asked the Court for

a special investigation team ( SIT ) to look into these cases. In 2005, the Justice B P Jeevan

Reddy Commission appointed by the United Progressive Alliance ( UPA ) government

had also made a strong case for the withdrawal of the law from Manipur. It termed AFSPA

"a symbol of oppression, an object of hate and an instrument of discrimination and high

handedness" and recommended a progressive withdrawal of the law. But neither of thesejudicial commissions nor their considered recommendations appear to have made a dent

on the thinking of governments at the centre and the state or the army.

A democracy of armed soldiers Fri, Aug 22, 2014AFSPA, The Hindu, polity, Irom Sharmila,

Humanising the law Sat, Aug 23, 2014AFSPA, The Hindu, polity, Irom Sharmila,

But Irom Sharmila Chanu's 14-year-long hunger strike is no ordinary circumstance. Whatever

the state does -- be it arresting and force-feeding her or ignoring her demand for an end

to military impunity by repealing the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958 -- the Manipuri

activist, now 42, seems to triumph. It is a sign of the government's defeat that it has been

forced to arrest Ms. Sharmila again, two days after she was released by a court. The authorities

are on questionable legal ground in repeatedly detaining her -- after the court found that

she had done no crime and that the provision criminalising attempt to commit suicide is

not applicable to political protests like hers -- but they seem to have no choice, as she can

be fed by nasal tube only in custody. In 2005, the United Progressive Alliance regimerecognised the need to amend or dilute AFSPA and appointed a committee headed by former

Supreme Court judge B.P. Jeevan Reddy. The panel unambiguously recommended that

AFSPA be repealed. It suggested amendments to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)

Act that could legally tackle insurgency and conflict in areas currently notified under AFSPA.

A Constitution Bench has upheld the section on the ground that the 'right to live' does

not include the 'right to die', but courts have also suggested that the provision be repealed,

8/10/2019 Polity Aug 22 to 31

5/25

KIIW


as it is inhuman to prosecute those who attempt suicide due to depression instead of empowering

them to lead fruitful lives. However, the state seems to need this provision to deal with

political protesters resorting to hunger strikes. It is time the government repealed AFSPA

and abrogated Section 309 to humanise the law further.

Politics and criminality Thu, Aug 28, 2014mains, polity, Businessline, criminalization of politics, Supreme Court,

The Supreme Court's reminder that the executive needs to observe "constitutional propriety"

while appointing people to ministerial posts, and essentially suggesting that the elected

head of government should refrain from considering people who have had charges framed

against them in "serious" criminal cases for high office, is unexceptionable. In fact, the

Constitution bench was careful to delineate the border between executive and judicial power,

observing that it could not, through judicial interpretation, insert any additional disqualifications

into Article 75 of the Constitution. Nevertheless, with its reminder to the executive that

the Constitution not only endowed the Prime Minister with great power, but also reposed

great trust that such power will not be abused, it has effectively thrown the ball back in

the political court to decide what can, or cannot, be considered a disqualification for holding

public office. The letter of the law is quite clear on this. As things stand, a person convicted

in a criminal or other case entailing a prison sentence of more than two years is disqualified

from being a Member of Parliament or member of any legislative assembly. Such persons

are disqualified from holding ministerial positions, as laid down in 2001 by the Supreme

Court in the Jayalalithaa case. By stressing that "constitutional morality, good governance

and constitutional trust" enjoined the Prime Minister (and State chief ministers) to refrain

from picking people who have had "serious charges" framed against them by a trial court,

the Court has raised the bar on probity in public life, and echoed the public dissatisfaction

with the criminalisation of our politics. In fact, research shows that nearly a third of the

members of the Union Council of Ministers had declared in their election affidavits that

they had criminal cases pending against them, and that more than one-fifth of the members

of the current Lok Sabha also had similar charges pending against them. However, this

has to be read with some qualification. Our criminal law is a relic of the colonial era, with

sections specifically created as tools to quell political protest. Post-Independence, governments

of every stripe have built up a track record of misusing such provisions, as well as investigative

agencies, to foment cases against political opponents. And given the lengthy delays involved

in our trial process, the trial itself becomes the punishment -- especially if disqualification,

as per the Supreme Court's advice, is added. 'Innocent until proven guilty' is the cornerstoneof a sound and fair legal system -- even if it has been used as a defence by the criminal

and the corrupt. We need, as Prime Minister Narendra Modi has advocated, a fast-track

mechanism to decide cases of a political nature. In the absence of this, the debate about

disqualifying chargesheeted MPs and MLAs is likely to go nowhere.

8/10/2019 Polity Aug 22 to 31

6/25

KIIW


SC to interpret LoP provision for Lokpal selection Fri, Aug 22, 2014lokpal, The Hindu, polity, leader of opposition, supreme court,

The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Centre to decide by September 9 on the statusof Leader of Opposition (to represent the Lokpal Selection committee) and made it clear

that the Lokpal legislation could not be put into cold storage. Even as the AG submitted

that the Centre was reviewing the entire Lokpal Act and the Rules, the CJI said "the court

will interpret the term `Leader of Opposition' under the Lokpal Rules on next date of hearing

since the Lokpal selection panel envisaged LoP as one of the five members. If the government

fails to resolve Lop issue, the court may give a larger interpretation to the term LoP so

that it may include leader of the largest party or leader of the larger group." Time and

again the CJI has been stressing the importance of striking a balance in separation of powers

among the various organs of the Judiciary, Executive and the Legislature. The CJI's observations

on Friday on the role and status of LoP assume significance in this context. The CJI said

"LoP holds a significant position in House of People. LoP is a voice representing views

contrary to government. The very position of selection committee will create legal problems

in the absence of LoP. The Parliament may not have envisaged such a situation but it now

needs to be interpreted so that the process is fast-tracked. The issue needs objective consideration

in view of current political situation. The issue of LoP is relevant not only in Lokpal law

but also in other existing legislations and it cannot be prolonged." The CJI said efforts

should be made to expedite the Lokpal selection process and posted the matter for further

hearing on September 9.

Supreme Court judgment breaks from tradition Thu, Aug 28, 2014criminalisation of politics, mains, The Hindu, polity,

By sending a strong message that politicians facing criminal charges framed by a court

should be disqualified from becoming Ministers, the Supreme Court has stepped away

from the age-old principle that a "person is presumed innocent unless proven guilty." He

said the framing of charges by a judge was not the same as the lodging of an FIR by a

probe agency. Charges are framed in a criminal trial after the judge is satisfied there is

prima facie evidence against the accused after perusal of the final charge sheet. "Framing

of charge is a judicial act by an experienced judicial mind," Justice Misra said. Besides,

a tainted Minister heading a "high-integrity institution" cannot take refuge with only a

mere presumption of innocence to defend him, Justice Misra said. "There can be no disputeover the proposition that unless a person is convicted, he is presumed to be innocent, but

the presumption of innocence in criminal jurisprudence is something all together different,

and not to be considered for being chosen as a Minister," Justice Misra said. To this extent,

the court brushed aside the 1948 Constituent Assembly Debates of the Constitution framers,

who had then dismissed even criminal conviction as a disqualification for being appointed

Ministers, choosing instead to repose faith in the Prime Minister's advice. "Is it not that

8/10/2019 Polity Aug 22 to 31

7/25

KIIW


his integrity is already under question?" Justice Joseph asked. "If so, is it desirable in a

country governed by the rule of law to entrust executive power with such a person who

is already in conflict with the law?" Justice Madan B. Lokur, the third judge who wrote

a separate verdict, referred to the 244th Report of the Law Commission on Electoral Disqualificatio

on February 2014 to show that "one-third of the elected candidates at Parliament and StateAssembly levels in India have some form of criminal taint." To prove his point, Justice

Lokur cited the government's own documents such as the 18th Report of the Department-Related

Parliamentary Standing Committee on disqualification of persons charged with criminal

offences from contesting elections. "The Report acknowledges the criminalisation of our

polity and necessity of cleansing the political climate," he observed.

National Judicial Appointments Commission Sat, Aug 30, 2014EPW, polity, judiciary, National Judicial Appointments Commission, article 124,

An assessment of the new law introduced to appoint judges argues that it will make the

judiciary subservient to the executive and thus throws a fundamental challenge to the Constitution

and Indian democracy. The petition filed by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record

Association states that Parliament does not have the power to change the basic structure

of the Constitution which it has done and hence the government should be restrained from

sending the amendment bill to the states for ratification. The NJAC Bill is also challenged

on the ground that when it was introduced, Article 1241 and Article 217 were in full force

and effect and no legislation can go contrary to the Constitution. The two bills are therefore

a stillborn law, null and void. There was a similar challenge to the bill creating Telangana

before it became a law and the Supreme Court rejected the challenge on the ground that

only a law could be challenged and not a bill. Ironically, during the United Progressive

Alliance (UPA) regime, it was Arun Jaitley who made the point that no law could be made

altering Article 124 of the Constitution without a constitutional amendment first being

made but in its haste to set up a commission, the NDA seems to have forgotten this basic

proposition. The petition challenging the constitutional amendment states that the two

bills destroy the separation of powers and undermine the independence of the judiciary.

In plain language, this means that the executive can determine the composition of the judiciary,

making it an institution appointed by the executive. Given that in our system, laws made

by the executive can be challenged in front of the judiciary, it is imperative that judges

are not dependent on the executive for their appointment. It is obvious that under the new

dispensation, the government can veto the appointment of judges they consider unfriendly

to them. It is in these circumstances that the challenge is not only important but fundamentalto our democracy. Since 1950, judges have been appointed by the government in "consultation"

with the Chief Justice of India (CJI). For the first two decades, there was a near consensus

between the government of the day and the CJI. In 1981 the question arose whether "Consultation"

referred to in Articles 124(2) and 217(1) with the CJI meant "concurrence" in which case

the recommendations of the judiciary would be binding on the government. In the S P

Gupta case decided in 1981, the Court held by a majority that the recommendations of

8/10/2019 Polity Aug 22 to 31

8/25

KIIW


the CJI were not binding on the government. Once this decision was rendered the government

obtained a licence to disregard the recommendations of the judiciary. While this was a

literal interpretation of the word "consultation", it had devastating political consequences.

It appears the recommendation made by the CJI were not accepted as an invariable rule;

change was on the cards. Judges of these courts are invariably sons of former judges orsons of lawyers practising at the bar. The debate on who should appoint judges has never

really being thrown open to the public and we as a country do not have an articulated position

on this issue. In Court we are confronted with a binary position, either independence of

the judiciary or executive control. This process of reasoning is inherent to the legal method

and no nuances are allowed to emerge nor options considered. In 1993, once again, the

issue was taken to the Supreme Court and the judgment in the S P Gupta case was overruled.2

This time a bench of nine judges held that a collegiate opinion of a collective of judges

is binding on the government. The majority gave the following conclusions regarding appointment

(1) All the constitutional functionaries must perform this duty collectively with a view

to reach an agreed decision so that the occasion of primacy does not arise. (2) In case of

Supreme Court the proposal is to be initiated by the CJI and in the case of a high court

by the chief justice of that high court. (3) In the event of conflict of opinion the view of

the CJI has primacy. (4) No appointment of any judge to the Supreme Court or any high

court can be made unless it is in conformity with the opinion of the CJI. (5) In exceptional

cases, for stated strong and cogent reasons, disclosed to the CJI, indicating that the recommendatio

is not suitable for appointment, the appointment recommended by the CJI may not be made.

But in case the CJI reiterates his recommendation then, the appointment should be made

in accordance with his recommendation. (6) The senior-most judge of the Supreme Court

should be appointed as CJI, if considered fit to hold the office. The nine judges bench

opined; (1) The opinion of the CJI, having primacy in the consultative process and reflecting

the opinion of judiciary, has to be formed on the basis of consultation with the collegium,

comprising of the CJI and the four senior most Supreme Court judges. The judge, who

is to succeed the CJI should also be included, if he is not one of the four senior most judges.

Their views should be in writing. (2) Views of the senior most judges of the Supreme

Court, who hail from the high courts where the person to be recommended are functioning

as judges, if not part of the collegium, must be obtained in writing. (3) The recommendation

of the collegium along with the views of its members and that of the senior most judges

of the Supreme Court who hail from the high court where the persons to be recommended

are functioning as judges should be conveyed by the CJI to the Government of India. (4)

The substance of the views of the others consulted by the Chief Justice of India or on his

behalf, particularly those of non-judges (members of the Bar). Should be stated in the memorandumand be conveyed to the Government of India. (5) Normally, the collegium should make

its recommendation on the basis of consensus but in case of difference of opinion no one

should be appointed, if the CJI dissents. (6) If two or more members of the collegium dissent,

the CJI should not persist with the recommendation. (7) In case of a non-appointment of

the person recommended, the materials and information conveyed by the Government

of India, must be placed before the original collegium or the reconstituted one, if so, to

8/10/2019 Polity Aug 22 to 31

9/25

KIIW


consider whether the recommendation should be withdrawn or reiterated. It is only if it

unanimously reiterated that the appointment must be made. (8) The CJI may, in his discretion,

bring to the knowledge of the person recommended the reasons disclosed by the Government

of India for his non-appointment and ask for his response thereto, which, if made, be considered

by the collegium before withdrawing or reiterating the recommendation. Women, scheduledcastes, scheduled tribes and religious minorities continued to be, by and large, excluded

from the judiciary. The long-standing demand has been for transparency and public participation,

greater representation for women, minorities, scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. The

bills introduced in Parliament do not address any of these. The Commission is composed

of the CJI, two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, the law minister and two eminent

persons, to be selected by a selection committee consisting of the prime minister, the CJI,

leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha or where no leader of opposition, the leader

of the largest single opposition party. There is no definition of who is an eminent person.

If past experience is anything to go by, these could be lawyers or former judges. It is the

function of this commission to recommend judges for appointment to the Supreme Court

and the high courts. Seeds of Authoritarianism The judiciary which is supposed to be independent

of the executive is the only institution to which we can turn to question anti-people laws.

To give just one example, the move to amend labour laws to take factories with less than

40 workers out of the ambit of the Factories Act will deprive workers there of health and

safety benefits and is bound to be challenged. What was needed was public participation

in the matter of appointment of judges and equal opportunity to become a judge. The system

of nominations by the executive or the judiciary must be put an end to, instead, those who

consider themselves eligible must be permitted to send an expression of interest making

it possible for that person's antecedents to be evaluated. What happens in the Supreme

Court will change the course of the history of the nation. 1 Article 124 . Establishment

and constitution of Supreme Court: (1) There shall be a Supreme Court of India consisting

of a Chief Justice of India and, until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number, of not

more than seven other judges. (2) Every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed

by the President by warrant under the hand and seal after consultation with such of the

Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts in the States as the President may

deem necessary for the purposes and shall hold office until he attains the age of 65 years:

Provided that in the case of appointment of a Judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief

Justice of India shall always be consulted: Provided further that - (a) a Judge may,

by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office; a Judge may be

removed from his office in the manner provided in clause (4).

Judicial appointments not above reproach Fri, Aug 22, 2014Judicial appointments commission, polity, judiciary, Businessline,

All eyes are on the Supreme Court: it will decide on the validity of the Judicial Appointment

Commission Bill, challenged by the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association.

The petition seeks to quash the 121st Amendment to the Constitution. The origins of the

8/10/2019 Polity Aug 22 to 31

10/25

KIIW


Collegium system would seem to lie in an observation of the Supreme Court in SP Gupta

v. Union of India , 'We would rather suggest that there must be a collegium to make a

recommendation to the President in regard to appointment of a Supreme Court or High

Court Judge....'. Prior to the Collegium system, the Union Executive (Cabinet) had the

power to determine appointments to the Supreme Court; this was most telling when certainjudges were superseded with no apparent reason, except that their views on the Constitution

was contrary to that of the Government. However, there is no way of finding out how

many appointments the Cabinet acting through the President (or President himself), did

not approve, or how many appointments the Supreme Court Collegium did not approve.

The letter and spirit of law demand that people be made aware of appointment system

for important constitutional functionaries. While the Constitution of the United States

recognised this principle, today, the system is mired in politics and the Senate Judiciary

Committee cannot work without the effect of political considerations. Entry 77 of List

1 of Schedule 7 of the Constitution empowers the Parliament to legislate in respect of 'Constitution

organisation, jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court...'. However, can, or should,

Parliament legislate in respect of appointment of judges to the Supreme Court? If courts

were allowed to legislate, that would seem incongruous, since legislation is matter for

Parliament and adjudication is a matter for courts. Any system under the Constitution

must be one that effectively balances powers among the legislature, judiciary and executive.

Measures of transparency would help in evaluating choices. These would only strengthen

institutional economics of the Supreme Court and indeed, the Constitution itself.

Don't close the door on NJAC as yet Tue, Aug 26, 2014mains, The Hindu, polity, judiciary, National Judicial Appointments Commission, NJAC,

The Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha have passed the National Judicial Appointments Commission

Act, 2014 (NJAC Act), and the Constitution (99th Amendment) Act, to give constitutional

status to the National Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) to appoint judges to the

Supreme Court and High Courts. Rarely has a legislation of such importance been approved

by the two Houses of Parliament unanimously. This is the clearest endorsement of consensus

of public opinion in the country: that the judicially created collegium system of appointing

judges requires replacement by a new system of appointment. The JAC is to be composed

of six members -- the ex-officio Chief Justice of India, two senior-most judges of the Supreme

Court, the Law Minister, and two "eminent persons" nominated by a committee comprising

the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India and the Leader of the Opposition. There

is nothing to suggest that the two "eminent persons" will be the nominees of the government.Critics have faulted the new JAC principally on the ground that the three judicial members

of the commission will not have a predominant vote in the selection of a judge. They criticise

the provision in the NJAC Act which states that the JAC cannot recommend a person for

appointment as a judge if any two members of the commission do not agree for such a

recommendation. It is suggested that this provision takes away the power of the three ex-officio

judges of the Supreme Court to recommend a judge, and gives a veto to two non-judicial

8/10/2019 Polity Aug 22 to 31

11/25

KIIW


members. If the basis of the new legislation is to take away the supremacy of the previous

collegium to appoint judges, there surely cannot be a provision in the new law to retain

that power by giving a decisive vote to the judicial members of the commission. The JAC

Bill was therefore amended in the course of the debate in the Lok Sabha to delete the requirement

of a unanimous reiteration by the commission if the President required it to reconsiderits recommendation. Thereby, the Bill took away the power of the President or the executive

to overrule the recommendation of the JAC, which was not unanimous. The insistence

that the judicial members of the commission must have the predominant vote in the commission

is founded on a theory that the judiciary must have the right to appoint judges. This is

not the constitutional requirement in any jurisdiction. The U.K. Judicial Appointments

Commission, a body doing excellent work, consists of 15 members: two from the legal

profession, five judges, one tribunal member, one lay justice (magistrate), and six lay people

including the Chairman. The JAC will become functional only after a long time. The Constitutiona

(99th Amendment) Act has to be ratified first by half the States which will take several

months. A permanent secretariat to back up the functioning of the JAC has to be created.

Regulations have to be formulated for its functioning, particularly for the criteria of suitability

for judicial appointments. There are many shortcomings in the JAC as formulated in the

statute, but much will depend on how it will function in practice. Already petitions have

been filed against the JAC in the Supreme Court, and eminent lawyers have said they will

move the Court to declare the commission illegal. Whether they will succeed or not, it

is unfortunate that such a challenge in the Court will throw the system of appointing judges

in a cloud of uncertainty.

Yardstick for judiciary should also apply for ministers: SC Thu, Aug 28, 2014

The Hindu, polity, judiciary, representation of people act, supreme court,

The Supreme Court has made it clear that the yardstick followed in appointments in judiciary

and civil services of not inducting persons with doubtful integrity should also be applied

while appointing minsters. The apex court raised questions on how people with criminal

background against whom charges have been framed are made ministers at the Centre

and States. "It may not be altogether irrelevant to note that a person even of doubtful integrity

is not appointed in the important organ of the State which interprets law and administers

justice, then why to speak of questioned integrity! What to say more, a candidate involved

in any criminal case and facing trial, is not appointed in any civil service because of the

alleged criminal antecedents, until acquitted," he said. In its judgement, the apex court

left it to the wisdom of the PM and CMs not to recommend such names to the Presidentand Governor, observing that nation has reposed faith in them for "good governance".

"Hence, I am of the firm view, that the PM and CM of the State, who themselves have

taken oath to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution and to discharge their duties

faithfully and conscientiously, will be well advised to consider avoiding any person in

the Council of Ministers, against whom charges have been framed by a criminal court

in respect of offences involving moral turpitude and also offences specifically referred

8/10/2019 Polity Aug 22 to 31

12/25

KIIW


to in Chapter III of The Representation of the People Act, 1951," he said.

No Cure for the Malaise Sat, Aug 23, 2014EPW, national judicial appointments commission, polity, judiciary, NJAC,

Parliament's approval of the Constitution (121st Amendment) Bill, 2014 and the National

Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Bill, 2014 raises more questions than answers

about the process of appointments to the higher judiciary. The combined effect of the two

bills is to establish a NJAC which will be responsible for appointment of judges to the

Supreme Court and high courts as well as transfer of judges between high courts. The establishmen

of the NJAC marks the end of the judicial collegium, a committee comprising the Chief

Justice of India (CJI) and senior Supreme Court judges. In principle, there is a strong

claim that not having a preponderance of judges in a commission to appoint judges is in

violation of the independence of the judiciary. That judicial preponderance is essential

in a judicial appointments mechanism was held by the Supreme Court itself in The Second

Judges Case which established the collegium system. This is especially so in appointments

to the office of the CJI. For such appointments, the two senior-most judges on the NJAC

have to recuse themselves, since they will be in consideration for appointment as CJI. This

will mean the CJI is the only judicial member for this particular selection. This is symptomatic

of a larger concern with the bills - an inadequate safeguarding of transparency, particularly

in the details of the process. This is surprising, since the most egregious failing of the collegium

system was the secrecy of its functioning and the lack of reasons for its decisions. One

would have expected rectification of this deficiency to be the raison d'etre of these reforms.

On the contrary, the shortlisting of candidates, their final selection, and the exercise of

a veto in respect of certain candidatures can all be done by theNJAC in secret without

any reasons being provided. Safeguards to ensure that persons are appointed on the basis

of their ability rather than their connections are thus largely absent. There is no guarantee

that the spectre of nepotism and trade-offs that characterised several collegium appointments

will not be replicated in the NJAC. But as far as the separation of powers in India's constitutional

framework is concerned, we live in testing times. The Narendra Modi government is the

first in over two decades to command an absolute majority in the Lok Sabha. The judiciary,

having cited governance deficits to justify expansive and activist interpretations of the

Constitution in this time, might need to closely introspect about its interpretive approach

and wider public role.

'Does NJAC Bill curb independence of judiciary?' Mon, Aug 25, 201The Hindu, polity, judiciary, NJAC,

The Supreme Court on Monday will hear a batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality

of the Constitution amendment and National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)

Bills giving politicians an equal role in the appointment of judges to the highest judiciary.

The petitions argue that the Bills interfere with the independence of the judiciary, which

8/10/2019 Polity Aug 22 to 31

13/25

KIIW


is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and hence cannot be materially altered

or amended by taking away the "pre-dominant" role of the highest judiciary to select its

own judges without political interference. The petition by the advocate panel has been

settled by eminent lawyer Fali Nariman, who had taken part in the government's consultations

with legal experts on the NJAC, which replaces the two-decade old judicial collegiumsystem of appointments. It argues that the veto provision in the NJAC Bill gives room

to embarrass the highest judiciary because a candidate chosen by the CJI and two senior-most

Supreme Court judges on the Commission can be rejected by the other half of the Commission.

Even these "eminent persons" are not chosen unanimously but amongst the Prime Minister,

CJI and leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha, it says. The petitions say that the Bills

would give "unbridled power" to the Parliament to regulate judicial appointments.

Constitutional duty underlined Sat, Aug 30, 2014election, The Hindu, polity, judiciary, Supreme Court,

It has in recent times delivered some significant verdicts to save the purity of the election

process. It directed that the 'none-of-the-above' option be incorporated in the voting machine,

and struck down a clause that saved sitting legislators from immediate disqualification

upon conviction. When the question whether a person with a criminal background can

be allowed to become a Minister was referred to a Constitution Bench, there could have

been the expectation that the Court would expand the existing law to bar the appointment

of those against whom serious charges have been framed. However, showing wise restraint,

the Constitution Bench has declined to prescribe any fresh ground for disqualification

for the appointment of Ministers. Instead, it has advised the Prime Minister, as well as

the Chief Ministers, to live up to the trust that the Constitution reposes in them by refraining

from advising the President, or the Governors, when it comes to appointing as Ministers

those with the taint of criminality. In the ultimate analysis, the judgment may be no more

than a learned dissertation on the subject. However, at a time when statistics of pending

cases and charges against legislators are cited to assess the extent of criminality in politics,

it is a timely reminder to the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers of their constitutional

responsibility to preserve purity in public life. The Election Commission has already mooted

some reforms to curb the criminalisation of politics, notably an amendment to make framing

of charges in serious cases the basis for disqualification, instead of conviction, as it stands

now. The message from the latest verdict is that these issues ought to be addressed through

legislation rather than the judicial process.

Safeguarding judicial autonomy Mon, Aug 25, 201The Hindu, polity, judiciary, National Judicial Appointments Commission, NJAC,

. The NJAC, the amendment provides, shall comprise the Chief Justice of India as its ex

officio chairperson, the two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court following the Chief

Justice, the Law Minister, and two 'eminent persons' to be nominated jointly by the Prime

8/10/2019 Polity Aug 22 to 31

14/25

KIIW


Minister, the Chief Justice of India and the Leader of the Opposition. In the immediate

wake of Parliament's approval of the amendment, however, criticism of the proposed commission,

which will replace the collegium in making judicial appointments, has been widespread.

. The focus here has been not only on the composition of the NJAC, but also its workings

as provided by the National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, 2014, which waspassed simultaneously with the Constitution Amendment Bill. The new laws have their

deficiencies, but they are a product of sustained discussion across all political lines and

are examples of a non-partisan process of law making. What's more, they have allayed

fears that the executive would exercise unbridled control over judicial appointments. And

most crucially, the laws would obliterate the collegium system which is not only opaque

and extra-constitutional, but also, as evidence of the recent past has shown, an abject failure.

In the Constitution (as originally enacted), the power to appoint judges to High Courts

and the Supreme Court rests with the executive. Article 124 of the Constitution provides

that the President shall appoint judges to the Supreme Court after consultation with such

of the judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts in the States as the President

may deem necessary for the purpose. And, where the appointment is of a judge other than

the Chief Justice of India, the President is mandatorily required to consult the Chief Justice.

Likewise, Article 217 provides that the President shall appoint judges to the High Courts

after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State, and in case

of appointment of a judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of the High Court

concerned. When drafting the Constitution, the Constituent Assembly took great efforts

to ensure that the judiciary was independent of any coercive political influence. To that

end, it introduced a number of significant provisions in the Constitution. For example,

the judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts serve not at the pleasure of the President,

but until they attain a fixed age; what's more, salaries and allowances of the judges are

charged from the Consolidated Fund of the State (which is incapable of being a subject

of a vote by a Legislative Assembly); discussion in the State legislatures on the conduct

of any judge is expressly barred; powers are conferred on the High Court to punish for

contempt of itself; and, significantly, judges of the higher judiciary can be removed only

through a complicated process of impeachment by Parliament. When, in Union of India

v. Sankal Chand Himatlal Sheth [(1977) SCC (4) 193], the Supreme Court found that

the word "consultation" did not mean "concurrence," it was guided by these objectives.

The Court held that the opinion of the Chief Justice in making transfers was not binding

on the executive, although a departure from his or her opinion could be made in exceptional

circumstances. While this decision was partially affirmed by a majority of seven judges,

insofar as the appointment process is concerned in the First Judges Case ( S.P. Gupta v.Union of India , 1981 Supp (1) SCC 87), the Supreme Court dramatically altered the position

in the Second Judges Case ( Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union

of India , (1993) (4) SCC 441). In the Second Judges Case, it ruled that the word "consultation"

in Articles 124 and 217 denoted "concurrence," and that primacy in making judicial appointments

is vested with the Chief Justice. This decision was later affirmed with certain modifications

in the Third Judges Case (In re Presidential Reference, (1998) 7 SCC 739), and it was

8/10/2019 Polity Aug 22 to 31

15/25

KIIW


held that the ultimate authority to make appointments to the Supreme Court lay with a

collegium of judges comprising the Chief Justice and his or her four senior-most colleagues.

Through the Second and Third Judges cases, the Supreme Court virtually appropriated

unto itself the power to appoint judges. As the nature of appointments made in the last

two decades has showed, the decisions exemplified a concern expressed by James Madisonin the American context: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary,

in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed,

or elective," he said, "may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." Had the

Supreme Court's decisions in these cases been substituted by a Constitution amendment

by Parliament to the same effect, it is trite to say that such a law would have been liable

to be invalidated for violating the Constitution's basic structure. Now, through the 99th

Constitution Amendment Bill and the NJAC Bill, Parliament has merely sought to realign

the process of appointments in consonance with a general principle of separation of powers.

The composition of the NJAC may not be perfect, but it is, in fact, tilted in favour of the

judiciary. If any two of the three judges on the panel believe that a candidate is unsuitable

for appointment, they can together veto the elevation of such a nominee. The Union government,

on the other hand, merely has a single vote in the NJAC, and cannot, by itself, place a

proscription on any appointment. It will require the additional backing of either one of

the judges or one of the 'eminent persons' for the government to thwart any nomination.

Any fears that the composition of the NJAC will vest an unrestrained power in the executive

therefore appear unfounded. Even in the U.K., where the Judicial Appointments Commission

is completely divorced from executive involvement, the Lord Chancellor retains the power

to reject a nomination made by such a commission. The NJAC might not be as broadly

constructed as the U.K. Commission, but its constitutional sanction will infuse in the process

of judicial appointments greater transparency and an enhanced democratic involvement,

as is the case in the U.K. Given that the originally enacted Constitution placed overriding

power on the executive to make judicial appointments, it is unfathomable how the proposed

system, which accords the judiciary not merely a consultative role but a determinative

one, can be found to infringe the independence of the judiciary.

Stop parading accused before media, says Supreme Court Fri, Aug 29, 2014The Hindu, polity, judiciary,

The Supreme Court on Thursday said security agencies should stop parading accused before

the media as it is an affront to the person and dignity of the accused who was presumed

innocent until convicted of the crime. The Bench made its view clear while hearing a petitionfiled by NGO People's Union for Civil Liberties seeking direction to frame guidelines

for reporting of the criminal cases and encounter killings by the security agencies. The

court said even statements made by witnesses in a pending case affects the fundamental

right of the accused and works to create a stigma against him.

8/10/2019 Polity Aug 22 to 31

16/25

KIIW


Secularism must be for all: N. Ram Mon, Aug 25, 201The Hindu, polity, Secularism,

"Secularism as the equality-and-fairness principle must be based on justice if it is to surviveand flourish. The unmet demand for justice in India has many dimensions -- the constitutional-poli

the social, the economic, gender, and so on. Discrimination and the denial of elementary

justice in these dimensions weaken and sap the practice of secularism, The path India took

in 1947 was a brave experiment in trying to address underdevelopment and extreme deprivation

in a large, highly populated, poor country, within the framework of parliamentary democracy.

But the experiment largely failed Nehru's litmus test - of ending poverty and ignorance

and disease and inequality of opportunity. What is worse, there is no indication that policy-makers

have lost much sleep over the palpable reality of India having a greater mass of basic deprivations

today than any other country on earth,

A republic of sub-nations? Wed, Aug 27, 201Telangana, polity, Businessline,

An important objective of the survey seems to be the assessment of actual number of Below

Poverty Line (BPL) households. This vital information would enable the Government

to deliver welfare schemes to persons and households for whom they are intended. It

would result in the 'weeding out' of 'bogus' claimants. This is indeed a bold and a laudable

move and it would do well for other state governments to follow suit. We are referring

to citizens from Rayalaseema and Coastal Andhra regions who had migrated to Telangana

in general and to Hyderabad in particular. They are derisively referred to as 'settlers',

'colonisers' and so on by the agitators for Telangana. The Telangana government had

contended that only persons resident in the State since 1956 or earlier belong to Telangana

and can access the benefits under the welfare schemes (This was the year in which the

region of Telangana was merged with Andhra and Rayalaseema regions to form the state

of Andhra Pradesh). The perception of 'Seemandhras' was that this was a move to weed

them out of Telangana state for being 'outsiders'. Only time will tell whether their perceptions

were genuine or otherwise. However, the discourse of internal colonialism has to be questioned,

where a citizen of one country can be considered as a settler or coloniser in another part

of the same nation. Even in this discourse, one class or any other organised group tends

to exploit the people in general belonging to another area or region within a nation. But

can one region (subsuming class, caste, religion, etc,) exploit another, in terms of colonisation?Could it not be that the very logic and process of development creates unevenness with

areas of prosperity existing along with areas of deprivation, for instance? More development

One solution to this problem is more and more development, an 'unto the last' approach,

by which the last unemployed person would also find a job with degrees of gainfulness

-- a Benthamite idea of the largest good of the largest number. This idea can only be accepted

with certain amount of scepticism. The question is: what does it mean to be a citizen

8/10/2019 Polity Aug 22 to 31

17/25

KIIW


of India, what are one's rights, what are the limitations to those rights, particularly in the

matter of internal migration when migration is considered a universal 'human right'?

Second, today, it is the people from one region who were considered 'outsiders' or 'settlers'

in Telangana. The development of Hyderabad has attracted a huge number of migrants

from other States such as Odisha and Bihar. They form a significant quantum of 'non-local'labour today across the occupational-professional spectrum. Tomorrow, some parochial

articulation will gain momentum that Oriyas and Biharis are taking away or cornering

job opportunities. Already, such an argument has been made in other contexts, for instance

in Maharashtra. At the same time, public policy has to address the 'regional' and 'local'

realities, too. Political parties should also desist, or statutorily be desisted, from making

political capital out of problems that can be otherwise solved by administrative action

and a balanced developmental vision of the state.

Supreme Court terms pleas against NJAC premature Mon, Aug 25, 201

The Hindu, polity, NJAC,

The Supreme Court has said it is "premature" to interrupt the ongoing legislative process

and examine the constitutionality of the Constitution amendment and National Judicial

Appointments Commission Bills before they were made law. A Supreme Court bench

of Justices Anil R. Dave, J. Chelameswar and A.K. Sikri refused to entertain a bunch of

PILs that termed the six-member NJAC a threat to judicial independence and a violation

of the basic structure of the Constitution. 'Review only after ratification as law' Instead,

the court chose to respect the Parliament's prerogative to pass laws by agreeing with Attorney

General Mukul Rohatgi's submission that judicial review of the Bills can be done only

after they are notified as law and not now, when they are still "exclusively within the legislative

domain" and awaiting ratification by at least 15 States. The Bills, now passed by Parliament,

if made into law after ratification by State legislatures and subsequent assent of the President,

arm politicians with an equal role in the appointment of judges to the highest judiciary,

"The Bill is undergoing legislative process. The legislative process is not complete. The

Bill has to be first ratified by the States, then receive the assent of the President and finally

notified in the gazette as law of the land. Then, if someone is affected by that law, that

person can come for judicial review of the law. Now this Bill is exclusively in the legislative

domain, it within the legislative hold," the Attorney General argued.

Talk to ease tensionsSat, Aug 30, 2014Pakistan, The Hindu, polity, International,

. But the unwritten truce has been fraying steadily since January 2008 with the frequency

of ceasefire violations by Pakistan going up each year since then. Last year saw the beheading

of an Indian soldier, and another incident in which five soldiers were ambushed at the

LoC. This year, in August alone there have been more than 20 instances of ceasefire violations.

The absence of dialogue between India and Pakistan at a time like this is cause for concern.

8/10/2019 Polity Aug 22 to 31

18/25

KIIW


Indeed, the near-non-existent dialogue process since the November 2008 Mumbai attacks

has meant that the two sides have not been able to address the ceasefire violations in a

structured way almost since the time these began. A vacuum can only encourage forces

in Pakistan pitted against improvement of relations with India to vitiate the atmosphere

further. It is perhaps not a coincidence that the shelling across the International Bordercame after India cancelled a scheduled round of Foreign Secretary-level talks.

Some distinctly anti-federal rumblings Mon, Aug 25, 201federal, polity, Businessline,

While all this may look fine in the world of politics, a continuance of such a situation --

non-BJP chief ministers boycotting the Prime Minister's meetings in their States -- doesn't

augur well for the democracy of which all of us are so justifiably proud. It has the dangerous

potential of a real breakdown in Centre-State relations in several parts of India. And this

would be disastrous in a country where the States -- whether of the ruling party or the Opposition

-- are getting more and more autonomous. An angry Soren later termed such heckling "rape

of the federal structure of India" and his party, the JMM, demanded an apology for what

happened. Soren's words might be harsh, but the underlying sentiment cannot be dismissed.

DoPT to notify amendments to Lokpal search panel mandate Tue, Aug 26, 2014lokpal, The Hindu, polity, Rohatgi committee,

Following allegations of a flawed selection procedure, the government had earlier decided

to amend the selection rules framed under the Lokpal Act. The amendments were to be

carried out in consonance with the report of a three-member committee set up by Prime

Minister Narendra Modi. Under the present rules, the search committee will shortlist a

panel of candidates for consideration by the Prime Minister-led selection committee for

appointment of the chairperson and eight members of the Lokpal. The Rohatgi committee

had also suggested reduction in the number of the search committee from eight to seven.

It recommended that the committee would devise its own procedure in forming the panel

of proposed candidates independently and that the government would only render assistance

to the search committee. Faulting the selection procedure, Justice K.T. Thomas, as the

head of the committee, and senior advocate Fali Nariman, as its member, had opted out.

Justice restoredWed, Aug 27, 201reservation, Frontline, polity, reservation in promotion,

the Supreme Court in its July 20 judgment (in Rohtas Bhankhar and Others vs Union

of India) upheld reservation in promotions for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled

Tribes (S.C./S.T.); their promotions to the posts of section officer were withheld after the

DoPT in 1997 withdrew a 1970 order relaxing norms in departmental competitive and

promotion examinations for S.C./S.T. employees. The case shows how arbitrary changes

8/10/2019 Polity Aug 22 to 31

19/25

KIIW


in service rules have deprived candidates belonging to the backward classes of the substantive

benefits of promotions. The Supreme Court had in a judgment in the same year held that

the provision for lowering qualifying marks/standards of evaluation was not permissible

under the Constitution. Implementing the judgment, the government in 1997 withdrew

its 1970 order relaxing standards for S.C. and S.T. candidates in departmental competitiveexaminations and in departmental confirmation tests. According to Rule 8 of the notified

examination rules, a relaxation in the standards was permitted for candidates belonging

to the S.C. and S.T. category. It says: "Provided that candidates belonging to the Scheduled

Castes or the Scheduled Tribes may, to the extent of the number of vacancies reserved

for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes cannot be filled on the basis of the general

standard, be recommended by the commission by a relaxed standard to make up the deficiency

in the reserved quota subject to the fitness of these candidates for inclusion in the select

list for each category irrespective of their ranks in the order of merits at the examination."

In response to a Right to Information petition filed in 1999, the UPSC had informed the

applicant that after discontinuation of relaxed qualifying standards in favour of S.C./S.T.

candidates, 29 seats for S.C. candidates and 31 seats for S.T. candidates for the posts of

section officer remained vacant in 1997. Reservation in promotion for S.C./S.T. candidates

has been a contentious issue, with the stance of the apex court itself not being consistent.

The provision of reservation in promotions has been perceived as anti-merit and working

against the efficiency of the administration. The judgments of the apex court are informed

by various interpretations of Article 16(4) of the Constitution, which provides for reservation

to ensure the equality of opportunity, and Article 335, which provides for reservation,

which is consistent with ensuring the efficiency of the administration. In Indra Sawhney

vs Union of India , 1992, a nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, while upholding the

constitutional validity of reservation, did not permit the lowering of qualifying marks for

a State. The judgment said: "However, it would not be permissible to prescribe lower qualifying

marks or a lesser level of evaluation for the members of reserved categories since that

would compromise the efficiency of administration." In 1996, the Supreme Court in S.

Vinod Kumar & Another vs Union of India , relying on the earlier judgment, held that

the provision for lower qualifying marks or standard of evaluation was not permissible

under Article 16 (4) in view of Article 335. Article 335 enjoins that the claims of the members

of the S.C. and S.T. shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance

of efficiency of the administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts

in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State. Meanwhile, Article 16 (4A), allowing

for reservation in promotions, was included in the Constitution in 1995 through the 77th

amendment. The judgment in the S. Vinod Kumar case, the Supreme Court held in itsJuly verdict, did not take this amendment into consideration.

8/10/2019 Polity Aug 22 to 31

20/25

KIIW


Set minimum qualification for MPs, MLAs: SC Thu, Aug 28, 2014The Hindu, elections, polity, supreme court,

The time has come for Parliament to prescribe some minimum qualifications for Parliamentarians/Las prescribed in other fields, the Supreme Court observed on Wednesday. Justice Madan

Lokur, in his separate but concurring judgment on the PIL filed in 2005 seeking removal

of tainted Ministers, recalled the words of the first President, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, in the

Constituent Assembly that he would have liked to have some qualifications laid down

for Members of Legislatures. Justice Kurian Joseph, in his concurring judgment, wondered

whether it would be desirable in a country governed by the rule of law to entrust the executive

power with a person who was already in conflict with law. He asked, "Will any reasonably

prudent master leave the keys of his chest with a servant whose integrity is doubted? It

may not be altogether irrelevant to note that a person even of doubtful integrity is not appointed

in the important organ of the State which interprets law and administers justice, then why

to speak of questioned integrity! What to say more, a candidate involved in any criminal

case and facing trial, is not appointed in any civil service because of the alleged criminal

antecedents, until acquitted." "No doubt, it is not for the court to issue any direction to

the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister, as the case may be, as to the manner in which

they should exercise their power while selecting the colleagues in the Council of Ministers,"

Justice Joseph said.

Govt sets up committee to identify outdated laws Wed, Aug 27, 201outdated laws, laws, polity, Businessline,

The committee will be headed by the Secretary in the Prime Minister's Office R Ramanujam,

while former Secretary in Legislative Department, V K Bhasin, will be a member of the

committee. The committee has been asked to submit its report in three months. The effort

is to bring a comprehensive Bill, based on the recommendations of the committee, during

the winter session of Parliament, a statement issued by the Prime Minister's Office said.

The committee will examine all Acts recommended to be repealed by a previous Committee

on the Review of Administrative Laws. The previous committee was appointed during

the term of the Vajpayee Government in 1998. That committee had recommended repealing

of 1,328 Acts. However, only 415 have been repealed so far. Expressing concern over

the slow progress, Modi called for a focused and result-oriented exercise to systematically

weed out archaic laws and rules. The Committee will also examine Acts and Rules whichmight have become obsolete in the last 10 to 15 years.

8/10/2019 Polity Aug 22 to 31

21/25

KIIW


Tilting at the Windmills (Again) Sat, Aug 23, 2014living will, EPW, polity, suicide,

the Supreme Court has once again been called upon to legislate in another fraught andcomplex area - legalising living wills. 5 Common Cause, a non-governmental organisation,

has in a writ petition filed under Article 32, asked the Court to declare that the "right to

die with dignity" be recognised as an aspect of the "right to life with dignity" 6 and in

furtherance of this, pass orders to allow for the execution of "living wills". In the alternative,

the writ petition seeks the setting up of an expert committee consisting of "doctors, social

scientists and lawyers" to study the aspects of the issue of "living wills" and frame guidelines

in this respect. 7 Broadly, two reasons have been indicated by the three-judge bench for

referring the matter for hearing by the Constitution Bench; the conflicting judgments of

the Supreme Court in Gian Kaur vs State of Punjab 9 (Gian Kaur), and Aruna Ramchandra

Shanbaug vs Union of India 10 (Aruna Shanbaug), and the "important question of law"

which requires to be decided in the case. 11 The three-judge bench has not, however,

thought it fit to frame any questions of law or terms of reference for the Constitution Bench,

leaving it open to examine any and all issues within the scope of the writ petition. The

Constitution Bench recently issued notice to all the state governments and appointed amicus

curiae to assist it in this matter. 12 Undoubtedly the writ petition raises a substantial question

of law relating to the interpretation of the Constitution, viz, whether the right to live with

dignity guaranteed under Article 21 includes the right to die with dignity. However, a Constitution

Bench of the Supreme Court in Gian Kaur has already held that the right to live with

dignity includes the right to die with dignity. In Gian Kaur, the Supreme Court was only

considering the criminalisation of suicide and not with euthanasia or living wills per se.

The proposition laid down in Gian Kaur , with respect to the right to die with dignity,

must be treated therefore as obiter dicta - binding on lower courts. 15 In Aruna Shanbaug

however, a two-judge bench of the Court was in fact concerned with a case where active

euthanasia was sought. A "living will" or an "advance directive" as it is also known in

some countries, is a legal document executed in advance by a person relating to the provision

of healthcare to such person when she is incapacitated and no longer capable of making

decisions for herself. It enjoins the executor and the medical practitioner to follow the

wishes of the executor of such a "living will" while providing medical treatment in cases

of such incapacitation including and up to the withdrawal of treatment. A living will is

the recognition of the common law principle that medical treatment, contrary to the intentions

of the person being treated, is an invasion of the right to bodily integrity of such person.A person who is no longer capable of making such decisions about treatment does not

necessarily lose the right to be treated according to her wishes, if she has indicated such

a preference earlier. A living will is therefore the expression of such a wish, and in the

common law, capable of being recognised and enforced as a valid legal document. 18

five key questions that the Court will have to grapple with are: (1) Who will be competent

to execute a living will? (2) In what form will a living will have to be issued in order to

8/10/2019 Polity Aug 22 to 31

22/25

KIIW


be valid? (3) Who is to ensure that a living will is properly obeyed? (4) What legal consequences

follow from the non-obedience to a living will? (5) Can a doctor, for reasons of conscience

or faith, refuse to execute a living will?

New Holistic Fertiliser Policy to be Unveiled Mon, Aug 25, 201Fertiliser Policy, PIB, agriculture, economics,

This could provide for a national platform for farmers to use bio-fertilisers. Elaborating

on the theme for the conference: "Agrochemicals for Ensuring Food and Nutritional Security

of the Nation", he said the Green Revolution of 60s and 70s was not a holistic, but a truncated

revolution. Expressing serious concern at irrational usage of fertilizers he said, this could

have an adverse affect for achieving a sustainable food and nutritional security for the

nation.

Off With Its Head Sat, Aug 23, 2014planning commission, EPW, polity, finance commission,

The Planning Commission, as the agent of "state planning", has been, in the eyes of free

marketers, the biggest culprit of all that apparently went wrong in the economy in the first

four decades after Independence. Those without a sense of history do of course have the

luxury of projecting self-serving opinions. The planners themselves in hindsight did accept

that many errors were made during the heyday of planning in the late 1950s and early 1960s,

especially in their neglect of the wage goods (food, clothing and such consumer goods)

and export sectors. Yet, the critics forget that India's diversified industrial base is a creation

of the planning era and that many of the stars of today like the first-generation of Indian

Institutes of Technology were "planned" institutions. The roots of India's strength in software

too can be traced to the pool of skilled scientific and engineering talent that was created

as part of the planning process. The unfortunate aspect is that in spite of the decline in

the importance of planning, Yojana Bhawan increased its power elsewhere - as an agency

that channelled as much resources to the states as flowed through the statutory transfers

of the once-in-five-years Finance Commission. In the name of addressing regional disparities

or special needs, the monster of centrally-sponsored schemes grew, so too other forms

of Planning Commission-directed transfers, such as additional central assistance and special

assistance. All this made the states supplicants of what all through remained a non-statutory

body. Central assistance to state plans left the states with little freedom to pursue their

own priorities and chief ministers had to make an annual pilgrimage to Yojana Bhawanto seek additional funds.

8/10/2019 Polity Aug 22 to 31

23/25

KIIW


Conflicts within Fri, Aug 22, 2014The Hindu, north east, polity, nagaland, Assam,

Persisting boundary disputes among the northeastern States of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh,Meghalaya, Manipur and Nagaland, reflect multi-layered conflicts in the region that the

formation over time of those States on ethno-linguistic lines failed to address or resolve.

While claiming cross-boundary ethnic contiguity, Nagaland says a 1925 notification that

transferred stretches of forests from Nagaland to Assam was biased and that they ought

to have been returned in 1947. The issue was raised during the signing of the 16-Point

Agreement between the Centre and the Naga Peoples' Convention in 1960 that led to the

formation of Nagaland in December 1963. Nagaland thus wants the boundary redrawn

on historical lines. Clearly, this is a dispute that cannot be wished away. Neither is it one

that could be allowed to descend into violence. In 1979, the Central Reserve Police Force

was posted to maintain status quo on the boundary as a neutral group. Law and order

along the boundary, which is divided into six sectors, is under the Central government's

charge. Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi has now accused the CRPF of failure to protect the

victims. Mr. Gogoi and Nagaland Chief Minister T.R. Zeliang need to work out ways to

avoid further confrontations.

Regulating India's nuclear estate Fri, Aug 29, 2014nuclear, The Hindu, polity, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board,

The 2014 Nuclear Materials Security Index prepared by the Washington-based Nuclear

Threat Initiative (NTI) has ranked India 23rd out of 25 countries with weapons-usable

nuclear materials. Currently, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), established

in 1983 through a gazette notification, is tasked with regulating the safety and security

aspects of the country's civilian nuclear facilities. However, it is not an autonomous body

as it depends on the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) for all practical purposes. It

has, as a result, been unable to perform its regulatory functions effectively. In 1997, the

Raja Ramanna Committee report had recommended that the Atomic Energy Act (1962)

should be amended to enhance the effectiveness of the nuclear regulatory system in the

country. In 2011, the Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority (NSRA) Bill was drafted by

the DAE and submitted to the Union Cabinet for approval. The DAE note that sought approval

from the Cabinet to introduce the Bill in Parliament had cited both the Mayapuri and the

Fukushima accidents as the factors that contributed to the urgency to strengthen the country'snuclear regulatory mechanism. The CAG report, tabled in Parliament in August 2012,

concluded that "the legal status of AERB continues to be that of an authority subordinate

to the Central Government, with powers delegated to it by the latter," and recommended

to the government to "ensure that the nuclear regulator is empowered and independent.

The Council of Nuclear Safety to be established by the NSRA Bill -- with the Prime Minister

as the Chair and mostly government representatives as members -- will be a very powerful

8/10/2019 Polity Aug 22 to 31

24/25

KIIW


body with the power to appoint the chairperson and members of the new regulatory body.

This will diminish the powers of the regulator since it will be subordinate to the Council

chaired by the Prime Minister. We will, as a result, end up having a government-controlled

regulator all over again. The NSRA Bill is explicit on the ability of the government to

control the regulator: "the Central Government may, by notification, supersede the Authorityfor such period, not exceeding six months, as may be specified in the notification." The

NSRA also does not say which facilities would be put under the new authority -- currently,

the AERB can only oversee the civilian facilities. The Bill states that "the Central Government

may, for the purposes of national defence and security, exempt any nuclear material, radioactive

material, facilities, premises and activities; the premises, assets and areas associated with

material and activities from the jurisdiction of the Authority." So, the question is this:

who will oversee the safety and security of the strategic facilities and programmes for

which there is currently no regulatory authority? . The new government should encourage

the DAE to carry out at least the following three amendments: one, the new regulatory

body should be given complete financial, administrative and institutional autonomy from

the Central government and made accountable to Parliament; two, the new regulatory body

should also include persons from outside government such as scientists, civilian auditors,

environmentalists and independent experts; three, given the crucial role that the NSRA

will play in the years to come, the selection of its members should be done by a body comprising

the Leader of the Opposition and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha.

Mudgal committee files report on IPL scandal Fri, Aug 29, 2014IPL scandal, The Hindu, sports, mudgal committee, polity,

The Justice Mukul Mudgal Committee on Friday filed a report in the Supreme Court on

its investigation into the roles of ICC president N. Srinivasan and 12 prominent players

in the Indian Premier League (IPL) betting and spot-fixing scandal. The Supreme Court

had in May 2014 appointed Justice Mukul Mudgal to probe the betting allegations against

Mr. Srinivasan, his son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan and the co-owner of Rajasthan Royals,

Raj Kundra. It was asked to submit its report by the end of August. "The Justice Mudgal

panel had also observed that the allegations of betting and spot-fixing against Raj Kundra,

team owner of Jaipur Cricket Private Ltd. [Rajasthan Royals], need further investigation.

New health policy to address health issues of young modern women Best way to keep in

shape is through Yoga: Dr VardhanThu, Aug 28, 2014new health policy, social, PIB, science & tech, health,

The New National Health Policy will address the rising incidence of reproductive illnesses

in young urban women. The government is alarmed by the reports of Polycystic Ovarian

Disease, Endometriosis and Fibroids --conditions associated with infertility, which is increasingly

affecting women even in their teens. Reducing maternal mortality, improving nutritional

levels of women from less-privileged backgrounds and reinforcing mother-and-child development

8/10/2019 Polity Aug 22 to 31

25/25

KIIW

programmes are areas of prime focus, the Health Minister said. In addition, the new national

health policy would address reproductive health, anaemia and numerous other non-communicable

diseases which have their origin in lifestyle problems, he added.

Aadhaar not mandatory to open bank account under Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan schemeFri, Aug 29, 2014RuPay, The Hindu, Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan scheme, polity, aadhaar,

Account openers will get a RuPay Debit card with an in-built accident insurance cover

of Rs.1 lakh and a pass-book immediately. Opening a savings bank account just got easier

and faster. With the launch of Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana, customers can walk into

a public or private sector bank with their Aadhaar card and open a zero-balance SB account

instantly. But Aadhaar is not mandatory. A National Payment Corporation of India platform

is being built to enable customers to access their accounts on mobile devices. Account

openers will get a RuPay Debit card with an in-built accident insurance cover of Rs.1 lakh

and a pass-book immediately. An additional Rs. 30,000 life insurance cover will be offered

for those opening the accounts before January 26, 2015. Also, an overdraft facility of up

to Rs. 5,000 will also be permitted for Aadhaar-enabled accounts after satisfactory transaction

in the account for six months.

polity aug 22 to 31

Documents