Tuesday 12 February 2013

Democracy and Democratization in the modern era


Democracy and Democratization in the modern era


One of the particular features of human beings is the desire to rule. To rule or pursue others to do things according to a person’s will was stronger in olden times. The king was the ruler of a country and the people were bound to obey him. This condition prevailed from ancient era. The history of mankind is always connected with the rule of several rulers and their system of rules. In ancient period the phenomenon of feudal system existed all over the world   in several forms. This created the divisions or class of people. The influential ones who were near to the rulers amassed wealth in several ways. The people in the lower class had to suffer physically and mentally as a result of this system. Gradually protest against autocratic rule began from the oppressed. This oppression led to the rise democracy in the world.

Democracy is the concept of system of rule of the people, by the people and f the people. Democratic system in modern era plays an important role in the life of people all over the world. Democracy affirms the spirit of independence. India is the largest democratic nation in the world. In a democratic nation the ultimate word to rule is the decision of people of that country. For this the most accepted method is the system of voting. Through the votes people decides their leaders who are capable of ruling a country. This system definitely made an end to kings and autocratic rule. 

Today most of the countries follow this system as it indeed the right system for the modern era. Today due to democratization people have the liberty to choose their way of living. They don’t have to live according to the will of others. The constitution of each country gives all the citizens equal right to live which is the result of democratic concept. The rulers and the people of have equal right and responsibilities towards the country. The most important feature of democracy is the equality as no body is expected to be exploited by others on the base of caste, creed, religion and social status.

The democratization is the most suitable system of rule of modern era without any doubt. It ensures justice, equality, right to life, right to every other aspect to the citizen of a democratic country. It is indeed is a system found by the people for the people

An Overview of Fast Track Courts


Recently, Delhi witnessed large scale protests by various groups demanding stricter punishment and speedier trial in cases of sexual assault against women. In light of the protests, the central government has constituted a Commission (headed by Justice Verma) to suggest possible amendments in the criminal law to ensure speedier disposal of cases relating to sexual assault. Though the Supreme Court, in 1986, had recognised speedy trial to be a fundamental right, India continues to have a high number of pending cases.
In 2012, the net pendency in High Courts and subordinate courts decreased by over 6 lakh cases. However, there is still a substantial backlog of cases across various courts in the country. As per the latest information given by the Ministry of Law and Justice, there are 43.2 lakh cases pending in the High Courts and 2.69 crore cases pending in the district courts.[1]
After the recent gang-rape of a 23 year old girl, the Delhi High Court directed the state government to establish five Fast Track Courts (FTCs) for the expeditious adjudication of cases relating to sexual assault. According to a news report, other states such as Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu have also begun the process of establishing FTCs for rape cases. In this blog, we look at the status of pending cases in various courts in the country, the number of vacancies of judges and the status of FTCs in the country.
Vacancies in the High Courts and the Subordinate Courts
One of the reasons for the long delay in the disposal of cases is the high number of vacancies in position for judges in the High Courts and the District Courts of the country. As of December 1, 2012, the working strength of the High Court judges was 613 as against the sanctioned strength of 895 judges. This reflects a 32% vacancy of judges across various High Courts in the country. The highest number of vacancies is in the Allahabad High Court with a working strength of 86 judges against the sanctioned strength of 160 judges (i.e. vacancy of 74 judges). The situation is not much better at the subordinate level. As on September 30, 2011, the sanctioned strength of judges at the subordinate level was 18,123 judges as against a working strength of 14,287 judges (i.e. 21% vacancy). The highest vacancy is in Gujarat with 794 vacancies of judges, followed by Bihar with 690 vacancies.
Fast Track Courts
The 11th Finance Commission had recommended a scheme for the establishment of 1734 FTCs for the expeditious disposal of cases pending in the lower courts. In this regard, the Commission had allocated Rs 500 crore. FTCs were to be established by the state governments in consultation with the respective High Courts. An average of five FTCs were to be established in each district of the country. The judges for these FTCs were appointed on an adhoc basis. The judges were selected by the High Courts of the respective states. There are primarily three sources of recruitment. First, by promoting members from amongst the eligible judicial officers; second, by appointing retired High Court judges and third, from amongst members of the Bar of the respective state.
FTCs were initially established for a period of five years (2000-2005). However, in 2005, the Supreme Court[2] directed the central government to continue with the FTC scheme, which was extended until 2010-2011. The government discontinued the FTC scheme in March 2011. Though the central government stopped giving financial assistance to the states for establishing FTCs, the state governments could establish FTCs from their own funds. The decision of the central government not to finance the FTCs beyond 2011 was challenged in the Supreme Court. In 2012, the Court upheld the decision of the central government.[3] It held that the state governments have the liberty to decide whether they want to continue with the scheme or not. However, if they decide to continue then the FTCs have to be made a permanent feature.
As of September 3, 2012, some states such as Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Kerala decided to continue with the FTC scheme. However, some states such as Haryana and Chhattisgarh decided to discontinue it. Other states such as Delhi and Karnataka have decided to continue the FTC scheme only till 2013.[4]
Table 1: Number of Fast Track Courts and the pending cases in FTCs (As on March 31, 2011)
State
No of FTC
No of cases transferred until March 31, 2011
Pending cases
Arunachal Pradesh
3
4,162
2,502
Bihar`
179
2,39,278
80,173
Assam
20
72,191
16,380
West Bengal
109
1,46,083
32,180
Goa
5
5,096
1,079
Punjab
15
58,570
12,223
Jharkhand
38
1,10,027
22,238
Gujarat
61
5,37.636
1,03,340
Chattisgarh
25
9,4670
18,095
Meghalaya
3
1,031
188
Rajasthan
83
1,49,447
26,423
Himachal Pradesh
9
40,126
6,699
Karnataka
87
2,18,402
34,335
Andhra Pradesh
108
2,36,928
36,975
Nagaland
2
845
129
Kerala
38
1,09,160
13,793
Mizoram
3
18,68
233
Haryana
6
38,359
4,769
Madhya Pradesh
84
3,60,602
43,239
UP
153
4,64,775
53,117
Maharashtra
51
4,23,518
41,899
Tamil Nadu
49
4,11,957
40,621
Uttarakhand
20
98,797
9006
Orissa
35
66,199
5,758
Manipur
2
3,059
198
Tripura
3
5,812
221
Total
1192
3898598
6,05,813
Sources: Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No.498, March 3, 2012; PRS


[1]. Rajya Sabha Starred Question no 231 dated December 10, 2012.
[2]. Brij Mohan Lal v Union of India (2005) 3 SCR 103.
[3]. Brij Mohan Lal v Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 502.
[4]. Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question no 2388 dated September 3, 2012

Lokpal Bill: Cabinet accepts key suggestions of the Select Committee


In the run up to the Budget session of Parliament, the Cabinet has decided to accept some of the key recommendations of the Select Committee on the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2011. The Bill, passed by the Lok Sabha in December 2011, was referred to a Select Committee by the Rajya Sabha. The Select Committee gave its recommendations on the Bill a year later in November 2012. At the Cabinet meeting held on January 31, 2013, the government has accepted some of these recommendations (see here for PRS comparison of the Bill, Select Committee recommendations and the approved amendments).
Key approved amendments
Lokayuktas: One of the most contentious issues in the Lokpal debate has been the establishment of Lokayuktas at the state level. The Bill that was passed by the Lok Sabha gave a detailed structure of the Lokayuktas. However, the Committee was of the opinion that while each state has to set up a Lokayukta within a year of the Act coming into force, the nature and type of the Lokayuktas should be decided by the states. The Cabinet has agreed with the suggestion of the Committee.
Inclusion of NGOs: Currently, “public servant” is defined in the Indian Penal Code to include government officials, judges, employees of universities, Members of Parliament, Ministers etc. The Bill expanded this definition by bringing societies and trusts which receive donations from the public (over a specified annual income) and, organizations which receive foreign donations (over Rs 10 lakh a year) within the purview of the Lokpal. The Committee had however objected to the inclusion of organisations that receive donations from the public on the ground that bodies such as a rotary club or a resident’s welfare association may also be covered under the Lokpal. Bringing such entities within the Lokpal’s purview would make it unmanageable. The Cabinet decided not to accept this recommendation stating that this view had been accepted by the Standing Committee while examining the version of the Bill introduced in the Lok Sabha. However, the government has exempted trusts or societies for religious or charitable purposes registered under the Societies Registration Act.
Procedure of inquiry and investigation: A key recommendation of the Committee was to allow the Lokpal to directly order an investigation if a prima facie case existed (based on the complaint received). The Cabinet has accepted this suggestion but suggested that the Lokpal should, before deciding that a prima facie case exists, call the public servant for a hearing. An investigation should be ordered only after hearing the public servant. Also, the Cabinet has not accepted the recommendation of the Committee that a public servant should be allowed a hearing only at the end of the investigation before filing the charge-sheet and not at any of the previous stages of the inquiry.
Power to grant sanction: One of the key reasons cited for delays in prosecuting corrupt public officials is the requirement of a sanction from the government before a public servant can be prosecuted. The Bill shifts the power to grant sanction from the government to the Lokpal. It states that the investigation report shall be considered by a 3-member Lokpal bench before filing a charge-sheet or initiating disciplinary proceedings against the public servant. The Committee recommended that at this point both the competent authority (to whom the public servant is responsible) and the concerned public servant should be given a hearing. This has been accepted by the Cabinet.
Reforms of CBI: There are divergent views over the role and independence of the CBI. The Committee made several recommendations for strengthening the CBI. They include: (a) the appointment of the Director of CBI will be through a collegium comprising of the PM, Leader of the Opposition of the Lok Sabha and Chief Justice of India; (b) the power of superintendence over CBI in relation to Lok Pal referred cases shall vest in the Lokpal; (c) CBI officers investigating cases referred by the Lokpal will be transferred with the approval of the Lokpal; and (d) for cases referred by the Lokpal, the CBI may appoint a panel of advocates (other than government advocates) with the consent of the Lok pal. All the recommendations regarding the CBI has been accepted by the Cabinet except one that requires the approval of the Lokpal to transfer officers of CBI investigating cases referred by the Lokpal.
Eligibility of Lokpal member: According to the Bill, any person connected with a political party cannot be a member of the Lokpal. The Committee’s recommendation was to change the term connected to affiliated to remove any ambiguity about the meaning. This suggestion was accepted by the government.
Now the interesting question is what happens if the Rajya Sabha passes the Bill with these amendments. The Bill will have to go back to the Lok Sabha for its approval since new amendments were added by the Rajya Sabha. If the Lok Sabha passes these amendments, the office of the Lokpal may finally see the light of day