Nov 16, 1998

If regular courts showed urgency special ones would be unnecessary

In upholding the validity of the special courts set up to decide the corruption charges against J. Jayalalitha, the Madras High Court has, inadvertently as it may be, turned the spotlight on the judicial system. Jayalalitha's argument was simple enough: with so many corruption cases pending before the (normal) courts, the very fact that the Tamil Nadu Government had set up ad hoc courts to try her reflected its prejudice. As such, special courts were unconstitutional and violated every citizen's right to equality. In sum, Jayalalitha was not paying tribute to the judiciary as much as seeking to exploit its loopholes and take advantage of India's extraordinarily slow justice-dispensing system. It was the amma of all left-handed compliments. During a week in which the Jayalalitha verdict sent political analysts scurrying back to the drawing board, another event had a similar impact. There was a minor revolt in the Congress over the rehabilitation of certain leaders accused of masterminding the anti-Sikh violence in 1984.

At one level, the two happenings may seem absolutely unrelated. At another, both are a severe indictment of the judicial process. There has to be something wrong with a system which allows a pogrom to go unpunished -- and to remain an electoral issue -- for 14 years. The examples cited are exceptionally high-profile. Judicial sloth, however, is not the exception; it is very much the rule in courts across India. It harasses everybody, from the mofussil litigant to the chief minister who may be forced to resign due to a trumped up charge-sheet. No wonder there are 28 million cases clogging the bloodstream of justice. In recent years the judiciary has been assertive about its rights, the correct procedure for appointments to the bench and so on. Now it has to focus on its primary duty: to deliver justice, quickly. Judicial activism has to be matched by judicial accountability.

To Market To Market

Public sector units could do with a "selly by" date

Aeons ago the BJP stood out in the Indian polity for its advocacy of market-friendly ideas. Some eight months in government would suggest the party is more comfortable with risk-averse, baniya-style economics than in being an audacious herald of free enterprise. Take the ruling coalition's attitude towards disinvestment. Various reports of the Disinvestment Commission have been received. The list of companies to be opened up to private funds is in place. Yet, the Government has moved with a disinclination which would befit an East Bloc regime from the '60s. The Container Corporation of India's upcoming equity offer is being portrayed as a triumph. In actuality, it represents only the finance minister's desperation to earn Rs 5,000 crore from disinvestment, as per his budget calculations.

India's experience with disinvestment has become the swadeshi version of voodoo economics. For a start, there is the self-defeating exercise of selling PSU equity to public-owned financial institutions. This is no more than jugglery, with share certificates moving from one hand of the Government to the other. Next there is acute reluctance to recognise that the real need is not for piecemeal disinvestment but full-scale privatisation. The case of Air India is indicative. It reported a loss of Rs 106 crore in the first five months of 1998-99. To get it out of the ICU would require fresh equity infusion worth Rs 1,924 crore. There is absolutely no alternative to the sale of Air India to a credible international airline willing to turn it around. Such negotiated sales have other advantages. One, they ensure that the new owners are competent to take charge of the company. Two, they are insulated from the market sentiments which make public offerings such a gamble. Such sales also need a prerequisite: political backbone. Does the BJP have the spine?

© Living Media India Ltd