      |
|
|
|
An aspect of judicial independence In a refreshing address at the opening of the new complex of the Attorney General's Department, President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratnga assured the public 'that the government will not influence the judiciary in any manner even if it is politically dissadvantageous to it' and 'that the government on its part believes deeply and sincerely that the judiciary will continue its impartiality and independence which is an essential pre-requisite to democracy'. These are noble ideals pronounced by the head of the state in keeping with the spirit of democracy. It is sad to reflect that in the early eighties judges who boldly exercised this independence were humiliated by goon squads attacking their homes, being shut out from entering their chambers and even sacked by the government. These are matters which have been widely publicised in the media. It is a matter of considerable pride that the judiciary have not been overawed by these ugly methods to affect their independence and from the era of the Bracegirdle affair up to the present day judges have upheld the sturdy independence of the judiciary, the final bastion that safeguards the freedom of the people. That independence does not cease when a judge lays down the reins of office but continues during his entire lifetime even after retirement. The constitution has recognised the independence of the judiciary when it places restrictions on the superior judges after retirement and all judges are restricted in their activities after retirement and must constantly maintain the dignity of the office they held when in service. There is a marked difference between the services rendered by judges to the country and the services rendered by public officers to the government. A judge's function is dependant on his ability, integrity and responsibility to ensure justice according to the rule of law and he is answerable only to himself to perform his duties according to the dictates of his conscience. If he errs in his findings his decisions are reviewable by an appellate tribunal. It is only judgements of the Supreme Court that the final and conclusive. In deciding an issue between the citizen and the State a Judge may be compelled to deliver a decision, which according to the President may be 'politically disadvantageous to the State' but if the wheels of democracy have to function smoothly it must be a decision that must be accepted without rancour by friend and foe alike. This indeed is a grave and onerous responsibility that rests on the shoulders of a judicial officer. Public officers fall into different categories. Firstly there is the minor staff who perform routine duties in the office or place of work and whose work is allocated to them by the executive staff who are responsible for the smooth running of the office and finally there are the public officers who are closely attached to the Minister. They include the members of his Secretariat staff, Heads of Departments and Corporations under the Ministry and a variety of other officers. They no doubt have a wide discretion in regard to the efficient functioning of the departments under the Ministry and most of them are conscientious and dedicated public officers, but the cardinal fact must be borne in mind that however conscientious and devoted they may be in the performance of their duties what ever independence they may have can be curbed, curtailed and even disregarded in the greater interests of the State and governmental policy. If they disagree with the implementation of governmental policy they can resign their posts and seek more lucrative and independent assignments in the private sector. Many a public-spirited and conscientious public officer has acted in this manner throughout the years. There is another difference to be noted between a retired judicial officer and a public officer who has retired or resigned from service. As already noted the activities of a retired judicial officer are restricted by law and even if he accepts a remunerative assignment it must be in keeping with the dignity of the office he held prior to retirement. There are no restrictions on the public officer who is free to accept any assignment in which he can usefully devote his skills and talents. Many retired public servants have entered the field of politics and made a name for themselves. Some have entered the business world and amassed large fortunes while others have obtained distinction in foreign assisgnments. Having regard to the above observations, it is necessary that the government should not only recognise and preserve the independence of the judiciary but that this independence should be implemented during the lifetime of the judge and that judges should be adequately compensated for their forthright independence. This can be done not only by recognising their merit after retirement but also ensuring that they are adequately compensated by their retiring emoluments and allowances been equated to those presently paid to judges on retirement. This is perhaps a feasible method by which the independence of the judiciary can be preserved and implemented. By A. C. Alles. India's Hamletian
dilemma NEW DELHI, July 7: Sonia Gandhi, the Italian-born widow of late Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, appears to have split India vertically into two camps. While one camp is ready to accept her as prime minister, the other half is reluctant to do so. A debate is presently raging here on Mrs Gandhi's suitability for the top executive post in the land in the wake of the instability that has been staring Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led coalition government in the face. "Outlook," a weekly newsmagazine published from here, has conducted an opinion poll to size up the people's reaction to the possibility of Mrs Gandhi becoming the prime minister, and published the findings in its latest issue. Fortynine per cent of those interviewed for the poll say they favour Mrs Gandhi becoming the prime minister in a government led by the Congress Party, of which she has been the president since April this year. However, 48 per cent of those polled say they do not like the idea. Three per cent said they have no particular view on the subject. However, when asked if Mrs Gandhi being a foreigner makes her unsuitable for the prime minister's job, 57 per cent hastened to say no. But 39 per cent said yes. Asked to rate Sonia Gandhi as a politician, 16 per cent said she is "very good," 25 per cent said "somewhat good," 27 per said she is "neither poor nor good," 12 per cent said she is "somewhat poor," while 20 per cent said she is "very poor." This suggests that Indians are clearly facing a Hamletian dilemma on whether or nor they would like to be ruled by a foreign-born woman. Born in Orbassano near Torino in Italy on December 9, 1947, Sonia met and fell in love with Rajiv Gandhi at Cambridge in England, and married him here on February 25, 1968. Since then, India has been her home. But she became an Indian citi- zen only 14 years ago. Even though married into the country's most famous political family, she chose to remain in the background as a very pri- vate person. The Congress Party invited her to succeed her husband as its president within 24 hours after he was assassi- nated at an election rally outside Chennai (Madras) in May 1991. But she refused. It was only early this year that she plunged into active politics by campaigning for the beleaguered Congress in the general election. She hardly speaks to the media. So little is known about her even though she has been living in this coun- try for three decades that for the nearly one billion Indians, she continues to be a riddle wrapped in mystery inside an enigma. However, in the recent past, prominent leaders such as former Prime Ministers Chandra Shekhar, HD Deve Gowda and Inder Kumar Gujral as well as West Bengal's Marxist Chief Minister Jyoti Basu have openly declared that they are willing to accept Sonia Gandhi as prime minister if the Congress Party topples Vajpayee and forms the next government. They have even offered her their parties' support to a Congress-led government. While opposition parties love to hate the BJP-led coalition and want Vajpayee pulled down, people at large have different ideas about the gentle and soft-spoken prime minister. For instance, three-fourths of those quizzed in the "Outlook" opinion poll said they are satisfied with the Vajpayee government's first 100 days in office. But one-third said they are not. But the danger to Vajpayee's shaky regime appears to have receded somewhat with Jayaram Jayalalitha, the supremo of the regional All-India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), deciding against withdrawing her support to it. At least for the time being. |
|
 |