THE LAWFILE

Archive for the ‘OPINION’ Category

The age factor

leave a comment »

PUBLISHED IN THE FRONTLINE

The appointment of three new judges to the Supreme Court reopens the debate on the need to appoint judges when they are younger.

The newly appointed judges of the Supreme Court (from left) Justices S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.S. Khehar and Ranjana Desai.

A FEW weeks ago, the Supreme Court of India’s collegium, consisting of the Chief Justice and four most senior judges, cleared the names of three High Court judges for appointment to the Supreme Court. Once the collegium’s binding recommendation was accepted by the President, the new judges, Justices S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Ranjana Desai and J.S. Khehar, were sworn in to the court on September 13. This new slate of appointments will be worth noting for several reasons. Not insignificantly, this is the first set of Supreme Court appointments made by the present Chief Justice of India, Justice S.H. Kapadia, since he took over the office from Justice K.G. Balakrishnan in May 2010. One of the new judges is a woman – only the fifth woman among 196 judges appointed to the Supreme Court in its history spanning over six decades, and this is the first time two women judges will serve on the Supreme Court at the same time. The new appointments offer a telling glimpse into the trend of Supreme Court appointments during the last decade.

A total of 10 judges retire from the Supreme Court during Justice Kapadia’s term, including seven this year. (Justices B. Sudershan Reddy, V.S. Sirpurkar and H.S. Bedi have already retired, and the others to retire, in the order of retirement, are Justices Mukundakam Sharma, Markandey Katju, J.M. Panchal and R.V. Raveendran. Justices Cyriac Joseph, A.K. Ganguly, and Deepak Verma, in that order, will retire next year during Justice Kapadia’s term). This is the first time seven judges retire from the court in one year. In 2000, during Chief Justice A.S. Anand’s term, six judges retired and, one, Justice M. Srinivasan, passed away, creating seven vacancies that year. The vacancies this year also occur against the backdrop of a larger debate concerning many vacancies in High Courts.

But what does the appointment of the three new judges to the Supreme Court say about the candidates typically selected to the highest constitutional court of India? For one, the three judges are, on average, quite old. Two of them, S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Ranjana Desai, are over 61 years old. The retirement age of High Court judges is 62, and both these judges had less than a year left to retire from their respective High Courts. Since Supreme Court judges retire at the age of 65, both will serve terms of less than four years in the Supreme Court. Is this adequate? Forget for a moment that judges on the Supreme Court of the United States serve in office for life, and forget that judges of the South African constitutional court serve fixed non-renewable 15-year terms, but consider that in India most judges of High Courts serve at least 10-15 years in office, if not more.

For a constitutional court of the stature of the Indian Supreme Court to retain its coherence as an institution, to maintain consistency and predictability in the articulation and application of constitutional norms, it is essential that its judges be given more satisfactory tenures. That is not to say that judges of repute and learning such as Justices Mukhopadhaya and Ranjana Desai should not be appointed to the court: the only contention is that they should have been appointed earlier, or once appointed they should be given fixed but longer terms.

 

At present, the average age of the three new judges to be appointed is over 60.7 years. In fact, of the 38 Chief Justices of India, only three – Justices Harilal Kania, B.K. Mukherjea, and M.N. Venkatachaliah – made appointments of judges who had an average age higher than this (Table 1 illustrates that the average age of appointment to the court during the tenure of these three Chief Justices of India was over 61 years of age).

Interestingly, this is in keeping with the trend of appointment of older judges, on average, to the Supreme Court.

Youngest judges

The data tell us that the youngest Supreme Court judges in the country’s history were appointed in the 1970s. One of the finest judges the Supreme Court has ever seen, Justice P.N. Bhagwati, was only 51 years old when he was appointed to it. The fact that he served close to 14 years in office, a term longer than his tenure as a High Court judge in Gujarat, perhaps had something to do with the stature he attained in the court and the status he achieved as a judge. But even before him, many judges in the 1950s were appointed to the court at age 55 or younger (B.P. Sinha, Syed Jaffer Imam, P.B. Gajendragadkar, A.K. Sarkar, K. Subba Rao, K.N. Wanchoo, M. Hidayatullah, and J.C. Shah). Some of these names are amongst the most well known in India’s legal circles.

As the court’s most prolific dissenter, Justice K. Subba Rao went on to herald the demise of the “Gopalan era” in the court. According to one estimate, he wrote as many as 53 dissenting opinions, that is, opinions in which he disagreed with the majority view. In A.K. Gopalan vs Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27, the Supreme Court had held that the constitutionality of a law would have to be tested on the basis of the object of the law itself and not by the incidental effect the law would have on other fundamental freedoms. In a series of cases decided in the 1960s ( Kochuni vs Madras, AIR 1960 SC 1080; Kharak Singh vs U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295; and Maharashtra vs Prabhakar, AIR 1966 SC 424), Justice Subba Rao expressed considerable doubt over the court’s “object” approach to constitutional analysis, an approach which was soon replaced by the “effects” test in R.C. Cooper vs Union, (1970) 1 SCC 248. Of a similar stature, opinions written by Justices Gajendragadkar and Hidayatullah still elicit adulation in classrooms and admiration in courtrooms. It is not implausible to posit that their age and lengthy terms in office gave them an edge – an occasion to define themselves on the court, and then to define the jurisprudence and docket of the court itself.

In the 1960s, Justice S.M. Sikri was the only judge appointed to the court at age 55, but as the Chief Justice of India he went on to preside over the most significant case in India’s constitutional history, where, as part of the majority, he and six other judges held that our Constitution had a “basic structure”, one which could not be altered or destroyed by constitutional amendment. In the 1970s, too, several judges were appointed to the court at age 55 or younger (Y.V. Chandrachud, P.N. Bhagwati, M. Fazl Ali, R.S. Pathak, O. Chinnappa Reddy, A.P. Sen and E.S. Venkataramiah). Many of these judges left a lasting mark on the jurisprudence of the court.

However, starting with the 1980s, in 30 years, only four judges have been appointed to the Supreme Court at age 55 or younger: Sabyasachi Mukherjee, A.S. Anand, S.P. Bharucha and K.G. Balakrishnan, each of whom went on to become Chief Justice of India. In fact, the data tell us that the oldest judges were appointed to the Supreme Court in the last two decades, that is, between 1990 and 2009. The average age of appointment during 2000-2009 was 59.7 years and during 1990-1999 it was 59.8 years – higher than the average of any previous decade. Justice Kapadia’s three appointments tend to fit this paradigm. In fact, one wonders if appointees to the Supreme Court today would not have been even older had the retirement age in High Courts been 65. If this were so the court’s collegium would have had even older High Court judges to choose from, judges who would potentially go on to serve only a few months in the Supreme Court.

That is not to say older judges cannot mould the jurisprudence of the court in a comparatively shorter but influential cameo innings. Chief Justice M. Patanjali Sastri, one of the first members of the court, was 61 years old when the Supreme Court of India came into being. Similarly, appointed at the relatively late age of 59, Justices Vivian Bose and H.R. Khanna each indelibly altered the trajectory of the court’s jurisprudence. In the famous Anwar Ali Sarkar case, Justice Bose was perhaps the first judge to use the phrase “reasonable, just and fair”, prescient words which would resonate in the court’s opinions decades later in the Maneka Gandhi case (1978) and beyond. Justice Khanna’s dissent in the habeas corpus case served as a moral compass for a court that tried desperately to atone for the wrongs it committed during the Emergency. Imagine a court where the Sastris, the Boses and the Khannas, or for that matter the Mukhopadhayas and the Desais serve not three to six years in office but 10 to 15 years – how much more beneficial that would be for the court and for our system.

Next, of the three new judges being appointed to the Supreme Court, two (Mukhopadhaya and Khehar) were High Court Chief Justices. There is nothing surprising about this either. In the early years, at least half the judges of the Supreme Court were typically amongst those who were not High Court Chief Justices. This began to show signs of change starting with the end of Justice A.M. Ahmadi’s tenure as Chief Justice of India (1994-1997) when an unprecedented 17 sitting Supreme Court judges (or 73 per cent of the court) were former High Court Chief Justices. This trend reached its zenith by the end of Justice R.C. Lahoti’s term as Chief Justice (2004-05), when an overwhelming 20 sitting Supreme Court judges (or 95 per cent of the court) were former High Court Chief Justices.

CHIEF JUSTICE OF India, Justice S.H. Kapadia. The number of judges retiring during his term will be 10. Of them, three have already retired and four more will retire this year.

For this reason, the fact that two of Chief Justice Kapadia’s new appointees are High Court Chief Justices is not surprising. (In fact, Justice Khehar served as Chief Justice of not one but two High Courts in succession (Uttarakhand and then Karnataka), a trend which has increasingly been seen in the court starting with the 1990s. The overwhelming dominance of High Court Chief Justices in the Supreme Court adds a few years to the average age of the court – after all, only the oldest judges in the country, those who have served the longest terms in the High Courts and risen to positions of seniority, are transferred to other High Courts as Chief Justices.

Neither, perhaps, is it surprising that the only Kapadia appointment to the court not to have been a High Court Chief Justice, Justice Ranjana Desai, is a woman. Only two (Sujata Manohar and Gyan Sudha Misra) of the four women who were appointed to the court before this, previously served as the Chief Justice of a High Court. Justices M. Fathima Beevi and Ruma Pal were not, and neither is Justice Ranjana Desai, although, to be fair, she was the most senior associate justice in the Bombay High Court.

P.N. BHAGAWATI, former Chief Justice of India. He was only 51 years old when he was appointed to the Supreme Court. He served close to 14 years in office and this perhaps had something to do with the stature he attained in the court and the status he achieved as a judge.

What do Chief Justice Kapadia’s appointments tell us about the Supreme Court itself? The appointment of the fifth woman justice of the court must be welcomed. Now there is only one other constituency that has a smaller claim to the court than women – “bar judges”. Since 1950, only four judges have been appointed to the Supreme Court directly from the bar, that is, without having served as a judge in a High Court. Starting with the 1960s, one such judge was appointed in every decade – S.M. Sikri in the 1960s, S. Chandra Roy in the 1970s, Kuldip Singh in the 1980s, and Santosh Hegde in the 1990s.

The 2000-09 decade was the only one since the 1950s when a judge was not appointed to the Supreme Court directly from the bar. The appointment of Justice Ranjana Desai to the court now means that women finally have a stronger claim to the court than the court’s own bar. However, the fact remains that where S.M. Sikri, a bar judge, served as the Chief Justice of India (during the historic Basic Structure hearings, no less), not a single woman has become the Chief Justice of India.

S.M. SIKRI. In the 1960s he was the only judge to be appointed at age 55, and the only one in that decade to be appointed directly from the bar. He went on to serve as Chief Justice of India and presided over the historic case on the “basic structure” of the Constitution.

Despite these statistical inferences, the three new selections for appointment to the Supreme Court must be welcomed, even as we look to see how the Chief Justice of India populates the remaining six vacancies during his tenure.

Abhinav Chandrachud is the author of Due Process of Law (EBC 2011), and, starting this Fall, a research fellow at Stanford Law School.

ORIGIN: http://www.frontline.in/stories/20111021282104900.htm

Reprieve from death

leave a comment »

T.S. SUBRAMANIAN IN THE FRONTLINE

DEATH CONVICTS IN THE RAJIV GANDHI ASSASSINATION CASE

The delay of over 11 years by the President to decide the mercy pleas of Rajiv Gandhi’s killers dominates the debate on the issue.

WHY was there a delay of more than 11 years before the President of India decided on August 11 to reject the clemency petitions of Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan, who had been sentenced to death in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case? The question came to the fore after it became known that the President had rejected their petitions. Officials of the Central Prison, Vellore, subsequently decided to hang them on September 9, but on August 30 the Madras High Court stayed their execution.

The Supreme Court reconfirmed the death sentences awarded to Nalini, Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan in October 1999. On April 24, 2000, M. Fathima Beevi, Governor of Tamil Nadu then, commuted the death sentence awarded to Nalini, wife of Murugan, on the grounds that she was a woman and had a daughter; but she rejected the clemency petitions of the other three. The three sent separate clemency petitions to the President on April 26, pleading that they had undergone solitary imprisonment for eight years, which alone could be a mitigating factor for commuting their death sentences. The President’s decision came after 11 years and four months.

Following this, Vaiko, leader of the Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK) and N. Chandrasekaran, advocate, filed petitions on behalf of the trio in the Madras High Court. Senior Advocates Ram Jethmalani, R. Vaigai and Colin Gonsalves, who appeared for Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan respectively on August 30 before a Division Bench comprising Justices C. Nagappan and M. Sathyanarayanan, argued that the 11-year delay made the death penalty illegal and unconstitutional. The sentence of death after the three had spent 20 years in jail was “unjust and inhuman”, they said.

“Unless the delay is properly explained or justified,” Jethmalani argued, “it makes the death penalty immoral, illegal and, according to me, unconstitutional.” He told the judges: “You must start with the assumption that more than two years’ delay is, prima facie, wrong.” Jethmalani quoted from various Supreme Court and High Court judgments, including the apex court’s ruling in the Chinnappa Reddy case, to argue that the 11-year delay could be the sole ground for commuting the death sentence.

Vaigai and Gonslaves argued that the delay was “unconscionable”. By no yardstick could a government sit on a mercy petition for so many years. The delay made the execution of death sentence unconstitutional, Gonslaves argued. He said Article 21 of the Constitution made it mandatory that no person should be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Taking 11 years to dispose of the mercy petitions was not a procedure established by law, he said.

The arguments were heard in a courtroom packed with a couple of hundred advocates. The judges said in their brief order that the main contention raised in all the writ petitions was the delay in the disposal of the mercy petitions. “Since the matter involves consideration of question of law, the petitions are admitted and there shall be an order of interim injunction. Counter by eight weeks.” Additional Solicitor-General M. Ravindran and Advocate-General A. Navaneethakrishnan took notice for the Union government and the State government.

Assembly resolution

As news of the stay spread, the several hundred advocates gathered on the High Court premises rejoiced. Arputhammal, mother of Perarivalan, thanked Jethmalani with clasped hands as a beaming Vaiko stood by. There was more rejoicing when news came in on the same day that the Tamil Nadu Assembly had passed unanimously a resolution urging President Pratibha Patil to reconsider the clemency petitions.

The President should take into account the sentiments of the people of Tamil Nadu and the opinions of the political parties, the resolution said. The Congress members did not oppose the resolution. The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) members were not present in the House.

The resolution, piloted by Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa, marked a significant change in the ruling All-India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam‘s (AIADMK) stand. Only the previous day had she told the Assembly that as Chief Minister she had no powers to stop the executions after the President had rejected the mercy petitions. This had been made clear in a Union Home Ministry Communication dated March 5, 1991, which said: “In case of death sentences where a petition for grant of pardon, etc., has earlier been rejected by the President of India in exercise of his powers under Article 72 of the Constitution of India, it would not be open for the Government of a State to seek to exercise similar powers under Article 161 in respect of the same case. However, if there is a change of circumstances or if any new material is available, the condemned person himself or anyone on his behalf may make a fresh application to the President for reconsideration of the earlier order. Once the President has rejected a mercy petition, all future applications in this behalf should be addressed to and would be dealt with by the President of India.”

Jayalalithaa also accused the DMK of adopting “double standards” and enacting “a deceitful drama”. Several political parties, Arputhammal and DMK president M. Karunanidhi had appealed to her to stop the executions. Jayalalithaa recalled that it was under Karunanidhi’s chief ministership in 2000 that the State Cabinet recommended rejection of the mercy petitions of Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan. (The Cabinet took the decision on April 19, 2000, and the Governor, accepting its advice, passed the order on April 24.) If, after recommending the rejection of the mercy petitions of the three to the Governor, “Mr. Karunanidhi issues a statement that their lives should be saved, people of Tamil Nadu should ponder whether it is not tantamount to adopting double standards and performing a drama?” Jayalalithaa said.

Karunanidhi, however, turned the tables on Jayalalithaa. He said that on April 27, 2000, an AIADMK member opposed in the Assembly even the commutation of the death sentence awarded to Nalini. Jayalalithaa, too, had objected to the commutation. In a statement published in the AIADMK party organ Namadhu MGR (Our MGR) on October 23, 2008, she had attacked the delay in executing the death sentences awarded to the trio.

Karunanidhi said: “The three persons have spent more than 20 years in jail, which is virtually tantamount to death sentences. So the DMK wants the [death] sentence to be reconsidered. Since Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan have spent more than 20 years in prison, it should be treated as if they had fully undergone the punishment awarded to them and they should be freed. The DMK appeals to the Centre to take steps in this direction.”

The assassination case

On May 21, 1991, former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated at Sriperumbudur near Chennai by Dhanu, a belt-bomb assassin belonging to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). After a meticulous investigation, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) headed by D.R. Karthikeyan charge-sheeted 41 people in the case. The SIT said the LTTE was behind the assassination. Of the 41 accused, three were absconding and could not be tried. They were the LTTE chief V. Prabakaran, its intelligence wing chief Pottu Amman, and deputy chief of the LTTE women’s intelligence wing, Akila. Twelve among the 41 died, and so charges against them abated. The remaining 26 stood trial in the designated court at Poonamallee near Chennai. In his judgemnt delivered on January 28, 1998, the designated judge, V. Navaneetham, pronounced all 26 guilty under Section 102-B (murder) read with Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code and provisions of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, or TADA.

The charge against Prabakaran was that he ordered the assassination. Pottu Amman conspired with Prabakaran to carry it out. The charge against Akila was that she, in tandem with them, planned the assassination and arranged for its execution. Dhanu, an LTTE cadre, was to carry out the assassination along with Subha. Sivarajan, LTTE intelligence wing member, led the nine-member assissination squad, which reached Kodiakkarai in Tamil Nadu from the Jaffna peninsula on May 1. Sivarajan and Subha committed suicide at Konankunte, near Bangalore, on August 19, 1991, when cornered by the SIT.

The charge sheet said Nalini, an Indian national and wife of Murugan, accompanied Sivarajan, Dhanu, Subha and Haribabu to the assassination site. Murugan, a Sri Lankan Tamil and LTTE intelligence wing cadre, acted as a conduit between Sivarajan and Nalini’s family. According to the charge sheet, Murugan knew that Rajiv Gandhi was the target; Santhan, also a member of the LTTE intelligence arm, was a member of the squad; and Perarivalan, an Indian citizen, helped Sivarajan and Murugan in planning and executing the conspiracy. He bought two battery cells on Sivarajan’s instructions and gave them to him. They were used by Dhanu in her belt-bomb. Perarivalan also bought a battery to operate an illegal wireless set, which was installed in Vijayan’s (another accused in the case) house to send messages to Pottu Amman. Perarivalan bought the Kodak film used by Haribabu, photographer, to film the assassination. Haribabu died in the blast.

After the designated court awarded death sentences to all the 26 accused, they appealed in the Supreme Court. On May 11, 1999, Justices K.T. Thomas, D.P. Wadhwa and Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri confirmed the death sentences awarded to Nalini, Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan but “altered” the death sentences awarded to Robert Payas, Jayakumar and Ravichandran to life imprisonment.

Justice Thomas disagreed with Justices Wadhwa and Quadri on confirming the death sentence awarded to Nalini. In his dissenting judgment, Justice Thomas said, “She became an obedient participant without doing dominant role. She was persistently brainwashed by A-3 [Murugan] who became her husband and then the father of her child…. She realised only at Sriperumbudur that Dhanu was going to kill Rajiv Gandhi. But she would not have dared to retreat from the scene because she was tucked into the tentacles of the conspiracy…. She knew how Sivarajan and Santhan had liquidated those who did not stand by them…” ( Frontline, November 5, 1999). Justice Thomas added that it could not be overlooked that she was the mother of a little girl who was born in captivity. Since the death sentence had been confirmed on the father Murugan and the child had to be saved from “imposed orphanhood”, the judge said, “the sentence passed on her is altered to one of imprisonment for life”.

Of the 19 other accused, the judges absolved 18 of taking part in the conspiracy. Although the judges confirmed the sentences awarded to them by the lower court under the Arms Act, the Explosive Substances Act, the Passport Act, and so on, they were freed because they had already served out their terms. S. Shanmugavadivelu, who was charged only under TADA, was acquitted.

Nalini, Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan filed petitions in the Supreme Court, seeking a review of the death sentences awarded to them. On October 8, 1999, Justices Thomas, Wadhwa and Quadri reconfirmed the death sentences. Justice Thomas, who gave the dissenting judgment with regard to Nalini, said her review petition “should be allowed and her sentence should be altered to imprisonment for life”.

After the Supreme Court ruling in October 1999, Fathima Beevi accepted the recommendation of the Karunanidhi Cabinet in April 2000 to commute the death sentence awarded to Nalini to imprisonment for life. Congress president Sonia Gandhi met President K.R. Narayanan and conveyed her family’s view that Nalini’s life should be spared. “It is my personal feeling, keeping in mind a child’s need for a mother,” Sonia Gandhi said ( Frontline, May 26, 2000). Fathima Beevi rejected the petitions of Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan. They sent clemency petitions to the President on April 26, 2000. President Pratibha Patil’s rejection of the petitions led to protests across Tamil Nadu.

SOURCE: http://www.frontline.in/stories/20110923281912700.htm

Half a victory

with 2 comments

Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Indian politician, spea...

Image via Wikipedia

VENKITESH RAMAKRISHNAN  IN THE FRONTLINE

Team Anna wins the first round, but the way ahead in the fight against corruption is full of uncertainties.

“A BATTLE has been won in the campaign for cleansing public life through the rallying of vast sections of people across the country. But a purposive piece of legislation has finally to be passed by Parliament even to rate this victory as truly meaningful. Indeed, the state of peace that has descended after the tumult is pregnant with uncertainties. Uncertainties of such dimensions that no one has a clue as to what this will ultimately deliver.” These words spoken by a key player in the negotiations between Team Anna and the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government during the tumultuous 12-day fast undertaken by Anna Hazare, which rocked the national capital and most other parts of the country, sum up the mood prevailing among individuals and groups that would play a role in the drafting and passage of a new Lokpal Bill. The government, the big and small opposition parties with representation in Parliament, Team Anna and various other institutions and bodies that have come up with suggestions on the proposed Bill, such as the Aruna Roy-led National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) and the Udit Raj-led Justice Party, all share these uncertainties and the lack of clarity about the future.

At the moment, of course, the prime mover is the Standing Committee of Parliament, chaired by Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi. The committee is expected to take up and initiate negotiations on the various proposals from different sides sometime in September itself. Central to these negotiations are the three points on which Parliament expressed its sense-of-the-House agreement in response to Team Anna’s demands. The sense-of-the-House resolution stated that the issues of “Citizens’ Charter, Lower Bureaucracy also to be under the Lokpal through appropriate mechanism, and establishment of Lokayuktas in the States” would be taken up by the Standing Committee. This process itself has historic dimensions because it is for the first time that the members of the Standing Committee will be discussing the provisions of an already introduced government Bill in response to a sense-of-the-House resolution suggesting incorporation of new provisions.

The mainstream political parties and Team Anna expect this process of the Standing Committee to be completed before the winter session of Parliament. On their part, both Union Finance Minister Pranab Kumar Mukherjee, who emerged as the most important player on the government side during the latter stages of the anti-corruption agitation, and Anna Hazare himself have come up with public postures that have signified a sense of caution and accommodation, which in turn is considered conducive to the smooth conduct of deliberations. In repeated comments to the media after Anna Hazare concluded his fast on August 28, Mukherjee made it clear that the government had bowed before people’s power and its genuine representative leader. Anna Hazare responded by agreeing that there was a lot more to be done peacefully to take the negotiations to the level of fruition. Asserting that “this is only half a victory”, he said he was confident that Members of Parliament would not go back on their word to provide “an effective and strong Lokpal”.

While this sense of accommodation and optimism bodes well for deliberations in the future, large sections of public opinion still harbour apprehensions as to how things will unfold. Speaking to the media immediately after Anna Hazare ended his fast, Infosys founder V. Narayana Murthy hailed the ‘in principle’ agreement of Parliament to the demands put forward by Team Anna but added that it was only the first step. “We have to go through the process of implementation and take it to success. And that is the toughest part. For implementation is the Devil.”

According to Professor Nil Rattan of the Patna-based A.N. Sinha Institute of Political Studies, the apprehensions about implementation have arisen essentially on account of the very track record of the players involved in the process. “Both sides have shown intransigence at different times. While the government has bumbled about from one mistake to another for long spells while addressing the issue, Team Anna had initially taken the obstinate position that nothing short of its version, the Jan Lokpal Bill, would do. The present atmosphere for deliberations could be arrived at only because the government rectified some of its mistakes and Team Anna was ready to come down on some of its demands like bringing the higher judiciary under the ambit of the Lokpal. What is the guarantee that this will stand? Who knows whether sections of the government will embark on some adventurist path again,” Nil Rattan told Frontline.

Indeed, the UPA’s track record in handling the early days of Anna Hazare’s August agitation is pathetic. Almost every section of the government, starting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, kept on making mistakes. Interventions by Home Minister P. Chidambaram and Telecommunications Minister Kapil Sibal made matters worse. Finally, Congress general secretary Rahul Gandhi contributed his mite to the rank confusion in the ruling establishment. These mistakes were in many ways directly proportional to the rising popularity of Anna Hazare.

Undoubtedly, the biggest mistake was the imprisonment of Anna Hazare on August 16, that too in Tihar jail, where people like Suresh Kalmadi and A. Raja, who were arrested on charges of corruption, are incarcerated. Subsequently, an official spokesperson of the Congress classified Anna Hazare as a “top to bottom” corrupt person.

Interestingly, the decision to take Anna Hazare to Tihar jail was made in an apparent effort to keep him away from the crowds. The political bosses and the administrative-bureaucratic leadership, especially of the Home Ministry, had reportedly considered different options, such as placing him in a government or private guest house or moving him out to Ralegan Siddhi (his hometown in Maharashtra), but finally decided against all these, fearing that his supporters would gather in front of the guest house or at Ralegan Siddhi. Informed sources said that they finally decided to shift him to Tihar because it was thought that the jail would not be accessible to Hazare’s supporters. But what happened was the exact opposite. Crowds gathered at Tihar in big numbers, forcing the government to order his release.

In the days following his release, and during the fast undertaken by him at the Ramlila Grounds, Anna Hazare was perceived as the symbol of all that is positive in society and in many ways the one-stop solution for all social problems. Various organisations, such as sections of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS)-led Sangh Parivar and non-governmental organisations of different hues and patterns of funding, pitched in for crowd mobilisation. Cumulatively, the impact of genuinely inspired participation and motivated organisational mobilisation resulted in massive crowds at the maidan.

Meanwhile, the government made another faulty move: it stated that Parliament cannot give up its supremacy. This when it had undermined Parliament in April by calling Team Anna to draft the Lokpal Bill and keeping the opposition parties out of the drafting committee. While this move was made by the Prime Minister, Rahul Gandhi made a facile attempt to score some brownie points through an intervention in Parliament highlighting the same supremacy-of-Parliament position.

Ultimately, it required the intervention of some youth power from the government side itself to untangle the mess that senior politicians such as Manmohan Singh, Chidambaram and Sibal had created. It was through the good offices of a young Delhi MP, Sandeep Diskshit, that the government built channels of communication with Team Anna and managed to bring about a solution. To start with, Dikshit’s intervention was followed by an appeal from Manmohan Singh to Anna Hazare to withdraw the fast. He made this appeal even while crediting Anna Hazare with valid slogans representing the people’s aspirations.

However, in the euphoria created by this collection of crowds day after day, shrill voices questioning the very legitimacy of political processes and leaderships were heard from the Ramlila podium – from Team Anna leaders including Anna Hazare, Kiran Bedi and Arvind Kejriwal, and supporters such as the actor Om Puri. The campaign was such that it sought to raise visions of an apolitical leadership replacing politics in the country. Voices like those of the social activist Swami Agnivesh, which emphasised the need to accord validity to political leaderships and elected representatives, were fiercely criticised by the volunteers of Team Anna and by sections of the crowd. Agnivesh’s comment that Hazare ought to have responded positively to Manmohan Singh’s appeal was targeted for special vitriolic treatment by many of Team Anna’s supporters.

Despite this, the government persisted with its efforts at negotiation. It was in this process that Pranab Mukherjee’s role came to the fore, even though Chidambaram and Kapil Sibal continued to argue that a tough line would ultimately compel Team Anna to compromise. This tussle on strategy reflected in a different manner within Team Anna too. Though voices like those of Swami Agnivesh had been sidelined, there also developed an impression that Kejriwal and Kiran Bedi were pushing things to the brink. A group within Team Anna, including senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan, took the lead in meeting a number of political leaders, particularly in the opposition BJP and the Left. These initiatives were supplemented by the Mukherjee-led negotiations.

Gradually, sections of Team Anna that had raised a rant against the political class as a whole had to listen to the less aggressive sections. And, it was this that finally led to the discussion of Anna’s demands in Parliament and the final passage of the resolution.

Notably, when Anna Hazare’s fast was withdrawn on August 28 following the passage of the resolution, Kejriwal made it a point to underline the fact that at no point of time had Team Anna sought to denigrate the entire political class as corrupt. While this was sought to be presented as a clarification, many observers perceived the effect of a corrective reverse pressure in this statement.

The passage of the resolution in Parliament and the acknowledgement of Anna’s agitation methods by parliamentarians have evoked high praise, especially from sections of the media, some of whom have described the agitation as the most phenomenal people’s movement to have happened in the history of independent India. In fact, some commentators have even gone to the extent of suggesting that there could be a classification of national politics as pre-Anna and post-Anna phases.

While it is true that the agitation and the fast touched an emotive chord in large sections of the people, including the middle class which has never participated actively in political initiatives, the fact remains that many other movements, ranging from the struggle for land reforms to the empowerment of Dalits, have had more lasting historical impact on Indian society.

Professor Sudhir Panwar, an Uttar Pradesh-based social activist associated with the Kisan Jagriti Manch, who supported the Anna Hazare agitation as a significant effort to initiate a new democratic discourse in the country’s political system, also pointed out that the increased participation of the middle class had helped get enhanced media attention to the movement compared with other grass-roots initiatives such as those of farmers and agricultural workers.

“The fact is the issue of corruption, especially corruption by the political class, is so pervasive and the fight against it has such widespread resonance that even those who have never thought of the country and its people in a larger sense joined in,” he said.

Panwar pointed out that the middle class, which had assiduously kept away from politics and refused to respond to phenomenal political developments such as the demolition of the Babri Masjid and the Gujarat riots of 2002, was triggered into action on political and other forms of corruption also because of the global economic crisis and its impact on day-to-day life.

Panwar emphasised that the leaders of Team Anna should use this opportunity to broadbase the movement with a larger understanding of other social issues and an earnest incorporation of other social movements. “Only then will this have a lasting impact,” he stated.

Naturally, this would involve adopting a more open approach to issues such as the demands of Dalits and backward classes in relation to the Lokpal and looking at broader issues such as the impact of neoliberal policies. Team Anna has announced its resolve to continue struggles in new areas such as electoral reforms, which will include the right to recall and the right to reject legislators. It has also stated that it will strive for decentralisation of power through the greater empowerment of gram sabhas and mohalla sabhas.

A one-line overview of the national political situation in the context of the agitation and the related developments was provided by Pranab Mukherjee when he said, “We are at a crossroads.” It was with this phrase that Mukherjee began his speech marking the beginning of the August 27 debate in Parliament on the Lokpal Bill.

Clearly, as the statement implies, it is time to move with caution to enhance the democratic content of the nation and its institutions and systems. It is a message that applies equally to the largely discredited and beleaguered political class as also to the new civil society players who have had a modicum of success in initiating a corrective process.

And exactly because of this success, Team Anna needs to be extra cautious in what it preaches and practises. For, the hallucination among some of its leaders that India is Anna and Anna is India militates against the very concept of democratic discourse.

Justice Bedi voices concern for subordinate judiciary

with one comment

SC RETIRED, JUSTICE HARJIT SINGH BEDI

The Supreme Court Bar Association on Friday organised a farewell function for Justice Harjit Singh Bedi whose official term in office ends on September 5.
Speaking on the occasion, Justice HS Bedi said that the last two decades of his judicial career have been very satisfying. He said that his association with the Bar, such as Chandigarh, Bombay, and the Supreme Court would be a memory that he will cherish forever.

During the speech, Justice HS Bedi commented on the persistent sniping that goes on at the judicial system. Justice Bedi stated, “the criticism is sometimes justified and it has to be accepted in that spirit but I find that some of the remarks are unnecessarily sweeping and uncharitable as my experience shows that for every bad Judge there are many good ones whose contributions are completely ignored.”

Blaming the pressures, under which the Judges of the lower judiciary have to function, Justice HS Bedi said that it was responsible for the Judges to avoid taking decisions in controversial matters.

“The subordinate judiciary is at the receiving end not only from the litigant, as one side has to lose, but also from the public, the politician, the media, from unscrupulous lawyers, and, more importantly, from its superiors in the judicial hierarchy. It is this fear in the lower judiciary that is, in many ways, responsible for the creation of excessive and avoidable litigation in the higher courts as subordinate Judges play safe and let Judges higher in the hierarchy take decisions in controversial matters,” Justice HS Bedi said.

Justice Bedi during his speech also commented on the assessment made on the level of corruption in the judiciary. “We have High Court and Supreme Court Judges making assessments about the extent of corruption in the judiciary and offering widely differing figures from 20% to 80%.  How they come about these figures is a mystery to me. Undoubtedly allegations of corruption leveled against a Judge must be strictly dealt with, and that is invariably the case,” Justice Bedi said.

Chief Justice SH Kapadia, speaking on the occasion said that Justice Bedi has been a distinguished colleague who by joining the higher judicial office had continued the family tradition as his father Justice Jagjit Singh Bedi was a distinguished Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The Chief Justice said that the judgments pronounced by Justice Bedi were always well structured and there was no element of judicial overreach. He said that his judgments and speeches were always appropriate and well balanced.

“He never crossed the lakshman rekha. His judgments indicate a very fine balance also between judicial activism and judicial restraint,” Chief Justice SH Kapadia said.

Is the death penalty about to die?

with 4 comments

https://i1.wp.com/www.hindustantimes.com/images/HTPopups/040911/04_09_pg16b.jpg

The Madras High Court‘s order last week staying the execution of former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi‘s three killers has triggered a fresh debate on the desirability of the death penalty in India. The court also asked the government to explain why it took 11 years for the president to reject the trio’s mercy pleas.

President Pratibha Patil rejected them in early August. The Tamil Nadu assembly then passed a unanimous resolution requesting the president to reconsider her decision. Politicians in Punjab are making a similar demand for Devender Pal Singh Bhullar, convicted of a 1993 terror attack in Delhi that claimed several lives. Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Omar Abdullah reflected the sentiment in his state when he tweeted that had his state assembly passed a similar resolution about Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru reactions would not have been so muted.

The BJP favours the death penalty for such criminals, but Congress leaders have been airing their personal views for or against it. The Indian intelligentsia – the media, academics and the judiciary is also divided about the issue.

A look at the debate:

Punishment is a natural response to crime
This principle is almost universally accepted and that letting off criminals can result in vigilante justice. Also, the punishment has to be proportionate to the degree of wrongdoing and mitigating circumstances have to be considered while deciding the quantum of punishment. It goes without saying that the accused will be given a fair chance to defend himself/herself.

But various societies in different parts of the world react to crime in different ways. While some, such as a few Arab countries, choose retributive punishment of “an eye for an eye”, others have deterrent punishment. Of late, there has been a shift towards restorative and reformist approaches to punishment, including in India.

Death Penalty in India
Capital crimes are murder, gang robbery with murder, abetting the suicide of a child or insane person, waging war against the government and abetting mutiny by a member of the armed forces. In recent years, the death penalty has also been imposed under a new anti-terrorism legislation for people convicted of terrorist activities.

Is the judiciary becoming averse to the death penalty?
Section 354(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which was added to the Code in 1973, requires a judge to give “special reasons” for awarding death sentences. In 1980, in the Bachan Singh case, the Supreme Court propounded the “rarest of rare” doctrine and since then, the life sentence is the rule and the death sentence the exception.

But recently, the Supreme Court refused to impose the capital punishment in the Graham Staines, Jessica Lall and Priyadarshini Mattoo murder cases on the ground that these did not fall within the category of “rarest of rare.” Is the judiciary becoming averse to capital punishment?

According to senior advocate KTS Tulsi, the vice chairman of the Law Commision of India, “India has found a perfect balance by retaining the death penalty as a deterrent, yet invoking it only in exceptional cases. While the deterrent effect is maintained, the possibility of an erroneous execution is minimised. Compared with China, Japan, Arab countries and the US, the use of capital punishment in India has been minimal.”

Moratorium on the death penalty
In December 2007, India voted against a UN resolution calling for a moratorium on the death penalty. But in effect, there has been a moratorium on the death penalty in India. Since 1995 there has been only one execution, that of Dhananjoy Chatterjee, in August 2004.

The judiciary appears to be hesitant in awarding the death penalty. The executive has disposed of several mercy petitions in the past few months, but around 20 such pleas, including that of Afzal Guru, are still pending before the president.

According to Amnesty International, in India, at least 100 people in 2007, 40 in 2006, 77 in 2005, 23 in 2002, and 33 in 2001 were sentenced, but not executed, to death.

Rajiv Gandhi Killers’ case is a test case
The Rajiv Gandhi Killers’ case is going to be a test case for death penalty in India. Whatever be the Madras HC decision, the matter is bound to go to the Supreme Court, which could lay down guidelines for timely disposal of mercy petitions. If the court rules that inordinate delay is a ground for converting a death penalty to life imprisonment, then it would have bearing on all pending mercy petitions, including that of Afzal Guru.

World moving towards abolition of death penalty
According to Amnesty International, more than two-thirds of countries in the world have now abolished the death penalty in law or practice. Ninety-six countries have abolished capital punishment for all crimes while nine have done away with it for ordinary crimes. Further, 34 countries have abolished it either in law or in practice. Only 58 countries retain this extreme form of punishment.

Should India abolish the death penalty?
“No”, says former additional solicitor general of India Vikas Singh. “Generally, a punishment should be aimed at reforming the criminal. But in some cases, such as in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case or Parliament attack case, you have to give a deterrent punishment, for the simple reason that you can not reform these criminals. Can you reform Kasab (26/11 convict)?”

But Suhas Chakma, the director of the Asian Centre for Human Rights, disagrees. “The death penalty has failed to act as a deterrent against any crime. It’s nothing but retribution. Such medieval justice does not reflect the ethos of Mahatma Gandhi. India should abolish the death penalty and join the league of civilised countries.”

COURTESY: HINDUSTAN TIMES

Teaching a hard lesson

with 3 comments

SUDIPTO MUNDLE in TOI

Shehla Masood was killed in Bhopal recently, yet another RTI activist who lost her life in the battle against corruption. The Lokayukta report has brought down the chief minister in Karnataka. A high court judge is being impeached in Parliament. The Comptroller and Auditor General and the Supreme Court are in hot pursuit of mega scams. The CBI has charge-sheeted and locked up top executive honchos, MPs, even a cabinet minister. India is at war against corruption.

Now we have Team Anna’s much celebrated victory. His hunger strike and arrest galvanised a whole nation. Nothing like this had been seen since the freedom movement led by Gandhi, except perhaps the JP movement. Cong-ress leaders were clearly shocked. As the rallies swelled and Team Anna grew more stubborn, the party swung from hard line to soft line to hard line again.

Finally, it was Prime Minister Manmohan Singh – much vilified in recent times even by his well-wishers for neither leading nor resigning, and presiding over a corrupt regime – who did the right thing. At his instance, alternative proposals for the Lokpal Bill were discussed in Parliament, and an all-party resolution passed that supports the three key issues raised by Team Anna. He then reached out to Anna, requesting him to withdraw his fast.

Anna responded by congratulating Parliament and breaking his 12-day fast while the nation rejoiced and heaved a collective sigh of relief. The prime minister’s approach preserved the authority of Parliament, yet ensured that Parliament was responsive to a popular non-violent movement. Between Anna and him, they have led the people and the Parliament of India to the finest moment of our democracy as the world has watched and applauded us.

The Parliament resolution is a giant leap for Indian democracy, but only one big step in fighting corruption. The hard work starts now. As the standing committee gets down to the nitty-gritty of drafting the revised Lokpal Bill, it is a good time to look at the insights on corruption containment offered by a cross-over subject called Law and Economics.

The organising theme underlying this approach is the pleasure-pain calculus attributed to philosopher Jeremy Bentham. The idea that all human behaviour is driven by this calculus is controversial. But it seems reasonable to suggest that crimes like corruption are indeed driven by the criminal’s perception of potential gain and the loss if caught: pleasure and pain. Much insight on how to contain corruption derives from this simple principle. However, corruption takes many forms and no matter how clever a policy, the criminal mind can be equally clever. Also, beyond a point, the costs of further reducing corruption could exceed the loss from corruption. Hence, corruption can be contained, possibly minimised, but not entirely eliminated. With this caveat, the following broad proposals can be made.

First, there is the widespread phenomenon of citizens having to pay a bribe to get what they are entitled to by right, e.g., timely delivery of pensions, ration cards, passports, etc or the timely restoration of power, phone lines, water supply, and so on. In such cases, the bribe payer is actually a victim of extortion. In a recent paper, economist Kaushik Basu has proposed that acts of bribe-giving in such cases of ‘harassment corruption’ should not be considered a crime, as at present. Instead, the punishment for the bribe seeker should be significantly enhanced. Such an amendment of the relevant law could vastly reduce ‘harassment corruption’ because the potential extortionist would be deterred by his knowledge that bribe-givers are likely to blow the whistle after getting their job done.

For other forms of major corruption, the pleasure-pain calculus has generated three basic approaches for containment: high civil service pay to moderate the lure of illegal gratification; laws prescribing very harsh punishment and/or strong law enforcement to enhance the probability and expected pain from being caught, compared to the potential gain; and strong competitive structures with transparent non-discretionary rules to minimise the opportunities for gain from bribe-driven decisions. International evidence reveals two cases of high civil service pay and low levels of corruption, Singapore and Hong Kong. However, both these places also have strong laws against corruption, strict enforcement and open, competitive market structures. Hence, the individual effects of each of the three approaches cannot be disentangled in either of these cases.

Evidence from other countries indicates that strong laws, strict enforcement and competitive structures each individually and significantly contribute to curbing corruption. In most developing countries, including India, poor enforcement of laws is the norm. Turning that around would be very costly in resources and a great administrative challenge. By comparison, enacting strong laws or introducing reforms to strengthen competitiveness are relatively costless and administratively less challenging.

These should be our strategic priorities in fighting corruption. The former requires a revised Lokpal Bill that provides for very stiff punishment of corruption. The latter requires other urgent reforms to strengthen competitiveness through transparent, non-discretionary regulations that are not unduly restrictive. While these should be our priorities, enforcement too has to be strengthened to the extent our fiscal and administrative capacities permit.

The writer is emeritus professor at the National Institute of Public Finance & Policy, New Delhi.

COURTESY: THE TIMES OF INDIA

It is a long journey ahead: Kejriwal

leave a comment »

ARVIND KEJRIWAL

‘We want to pressure the government and assert our rights as citizens.’

Arvind Kejriwal received the Magsaysay award in the Emergent leadership category in 2006. A mere five years later, he has far surpassed that milestone, winning acclaim and notice for the way he conceived and crafted Anna Hazare‘s anti-corruption movement. He talks to Vidya Subrahmaniamabout the Jan Lokpal campaign, what it accomplished and why it often became controversial.

The scale and spread of the Anna movement have baffled many. How did this happen?

A movement cannot be created out of nothing. In this case, anger against corruption was at the point of eruption. Then two things happened. One, instead of merely echoing the anger, the Jan Lokpal Bill (JLB) offered a solution. Second, Anna emerged as a credible leader at a time of huge leadership crisis in politics. See, people did not understand the details of the JBL. They simply saw it as a “dawai” [medicine] for corruption. It is the combination of a solution and a figure like Anna — who lived in a temple with no assets — that clicked.

When we conducted referendums on the JLB, we used to try and explain its contents to people. But they said they did not want to understand the details. They just wanted to put a mohar [stamp] on Anna.

How did you communicate your message to such a large number of people?

Technology played a key role in this. When in January this year, India Against Corruption (IAC) member Shivendra suggested to us that we use Facebook to publicise our rallies, I dismissed it saying Facebook has a limited, urban following. But Shivendra went ahead. We had planned a single rally on January 30 at the Ramlila Maidan. But because we connected on Facebook, we were able to conduct simultaneous rallies in 64 cities. SMS texting also played a critical role. Our SMS communication was designed very intelligently. A company in Mumbai suggested we ask for missed calls as a mark of solidarity. Missed calls cost nothing. In March, we sent out two crore SMS messages and got 50,000 missed calls. Then we targeted the 50,000 callers, asking if they would like to enrol as volunteers for IAC. Initially 13 people responded. We sent two more rounds of messages to the 50,000 callers. And in just one week, the number of volunteers swelled to 800.

Surely television played a disproportionate role in projecting the movement.

TV certainly helped, both when Anna sat on a fast at Jantar Mantar and then at Ramlila Maidan. But the media cannot create a moment. They can at best magnify it. The crowds at Ramlila and the crowds that followed him when he left for Medanta hospital were not manufactured.

There have been reports of dissensions within the Anna camp. Also that the deadlock was broken only because Congress/government negotiators spoke directly to Anna.

Anna appointed Kiran Bedi, Prashant Bhushan and me to negotiate with the government. One day I was very tired and Kiran was also not around. So, Medha and Prashant went for the meeting. The next thing we hear [from the media] is that Kiran and I have been sidelined, that we are hardliners, and we are deliberately preventing Anna from breaking his fast. This was disinformation by the government.

You started with the maximalist position of “Jan Lokpal Bill by August 30 and any amendments only with Anna’s permission.” From that to accepting a “sense-of-the-house” resolution that was not voted upon — wasn’t it a climbdown?

When we started on August 16, there was such an overwhelming response that we thought the government would agree to our demands. People wanted the JLB. After a few days we realised that there was a serious leadership crisis in the government — negotiators were constantly backing off. In the last three days of the fast, it happened four times. The Prime Minister made a conciliatory statement, Rahul Gandhi went off on a tangent. Salman Khurshid, Medha and Prashant sat together and drafted a resolution. Next day [August 27], at 1.30 p.m., Salman said no resolution. It became clear to us that what we wanted — Parliament voting on a resolution containing Anna’s three demands — was not going to happen. Therefore we had to change our strategy.

Are you satisfied with the resolution that was adopted? It is not categorical and leaves escape clauses.

We are satisfied because it contains Anna’s three demands. It will not be easy for the Standing Committee to renege on Parliament’s commitment. We will be keenly watching the Committee’s proceedings and the MPs also ought to know that they are on watch. I know, of course, that it is a long journey ahead.

Kiran Bedi told a TV channel that at one point when all seemed lost, a miracle happened: L.K. Advani called her and gave her his word that a solution will be reached by the following evening [August 27]. She also said that the Bharatiya Janata Party, which until then was ambiguous on the JLB, changed its stand and offered full support to Anna.

We met the leaders of the main political parties thrice and as part of this we also met Mr. Advani. However, we have been clear that no BJP leader or leader of any communal organisation will share the stage with us. This is the decision of our core committee. As for Kiran talking about Mr. Advani, please put that question to her.

So are you an apolitical movement?

No, we are political but we are concerned with people’s politics. The movement will always remain outside of political parties and outside of electoral politics.

You will not float a political party?

No, never. We don’t need to get into the system to fight it. We want to pressure the government and assert our rights as citizens. Everyone who has a dream need not get into politics.

Doubts have been raised about the credentials of those who have donated money to IAC. Sometime ago, a citizens’ group from Hyderabad wrote to you saying it was shocked to see some very discredited names in your list of donors.

A number of people have contributed money to the Anna movement. There is complete transparency from our side. Our receipts and expenditure are transparent. But we have no mechanism to go into the antecedents of our donors. And donations are streaming in, making it impossible to keep track. If there is a glaring case, we will certainly investigate it. I know, for instance, that there has been talk of the Jindal group. But those who donated to IAC are from Sitaram Jindal, not the Jindal mining group.

Your entire fight is about transparency and accountability. One of your NGOs, Public Cause Research Foundation, received donations on behalf of IAC and issued receipts in its name. But until August 29, there was no mention of Anna or the donations on the PCRF website.

That is an oversight. We will immediately update the website and provide a link to IAC.

Another of your NGOs, Kabir, received grants from the Ford Foundation (FF). According to the FF, Kabir received $172,000 in 2005 and $197,000 in 2008. The FF also sanctioned an “in-principle” grant of $200,000 for 2011, which you have not accepted so far. Why does Kabir not mention the FF and these specific details on its website?

We did not give the specific details because we also got some other NRI contributions and these were clubbed together. I will make sure that the website gives the break-up.

Fears have been expressed about the form of mobilisation we saw over the last four months. There was anger and impatience and, some would say, coercion in your methods. During the Ram Rath yatra, too, the BJP said people were angry because the mandir had not been built for 40 years. Aren’t you setting a worrying precedent?

The two situations are not comparable. One was communal and divisive and went against the grain of the Constitution. We are not asking for anything illegal. Our demands resonate with the people and our movement has been unifying, non-violent and entirely within rights given by the Constitution. What is wrong if people demand a strong law against corruption? What is wrong if they ask for the Jan Lokpal Bill?

Why did you ask for Parliamentary due process to be suspended? You didn’t want the JLB to go to the Standing Committee.

The JLB was drafted after wide consultations; it underwent many revisions based on feedback. Where is this kind of discussion in the drafting of anysarkari Bill? The purpose of the Standing Committee is to take multiple views on board. But not all Bills reach the Standing Committee, and in 90 per cent of the cases, the government does not accept the Committee’s recommendations. So why the fuss only for JLB which has been widely discussed and debated?

COURTESY: THE HINDU