End of Institutions @ India

The PM’s extempore speech from the hallowed ramparts of the Red Fort was eloquent and emotional and drew just praise. Many were elated at the prospect of an end to the planning era which was reminiscent of Nehruvian times when the nation had to allocate scares resources among teeming millions. While on a personal level, I do support this particular attempt at reimagining the Planning Commission, what perturbs me is the string of events in which the current announcement is another pearl, signifying the end of institutions in India.

It all started with the spate of resignations from UPA appointed governors as soon as the new NDA government came to power. Some agreed, some forced and some resisted. The nation saw the fate of one of the governors who resisted i.e. Kamla Beniwal who was unceremoniously shunted out of office with barely 4 months left for her tenure, based on an imaginary loss of 1000+ crores due to delay in her signing off legislations which were dear to the current PM. Wonder what would be the loss to the exchequer if the same yardstick is applied to the spate of parliamentary disruptions which were carried out by the BJP, session after session for the last 2 years of the UPA government’s tenure!

Next in line was the spectacle of laws itself being changed to appoint the secretary to the PM. It is an unhealthy practice if laws are amended to suit the whims and fancies of individuals. No one doubts the integrity and the capability of Mr. Nripendra Mishra but that can surely not be reason enough to bring in a special ordinance to bypass The Ordinance amends Section 5(8) the TRAI Act, 1997, which points out that the "chairperson or any other member ceasing to hold office as such, shall (a) be ineligible for further employment under the central government or any state government, or (b) not accept any commercial employment, for a period of two years from the date he ceases to hold such office."

Mr Misra, a 1967-batch IAS officer of the Uttar Pradesh cadre, remained the TRAI chairman from 2006 to 2009. In keeping with the rules, he could not have been appointed as Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister, without amending the relevant provision of the Act.

Such laws are framed with an institutional view that people in such regulatory positions such as TRAI chairman should not be swayed by lures of further appointments while considering matters of a regulatory and punitive nature. Thus the fact that the ordinance was promulgated and later ratified by parliament is an indication of the times ahead, where all regulatory and constitutional appointments will be far from impartial and will strictly be based on being in the good books of our honorable Prime Minister.

Recently an article in the national media caught my attention which highlighted the fact that in contradiction to the pre-poll days when the PM hopeful, Mr. Modi could be seen on every channel, every few minutes promising “Acche Din”. Post elections, not only PM Modi but the entire “Modi Sarkar” has implemented a sort of a media blackout with few if any details emerging out of the official confines. Utterings by someone as senior as Ravi Shankar Prasad ji on national prime time, warning a prominent news anchor about crossing limits during a TV debate does not augur well for a healthy democracy of which media is an integral part.

 Continuing with the same trend, the recent spate of revelations by Justice Katju and the consequent furor against the collegium system of judicial appointments acted as a catalyst towards the setting up of the National Judicial Appointments Commission. The legal fraternity has strongly reacted to the parliament passing the bill for setting up the National Judicial Appointment Commission for appointing judges to the Supreme Court and the high courts, describing it as a hasty move and expressing apprehensions of judicial independence being encroached upon by the government. Well known activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan said the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) for the appointment of judges to the higher judiciary was not in "public interest".

"It is not in public interest because it gives veto power to government to stop any appointment thereby compromising the independence of judiciary," Prashant Bhushan said.

Echoing similar sentiments, former additional solicitor general and senior counsel Bishwajit Bhattacharyya described it as a retrograde step that will compromise the independence of the judiciary.

"This is a retrograde step and this will compromise the independence of judiciary. It will strike at the doctrine of separation of powers and violate the basic structure of the constitution," said Bhattacharyya.

While, in my opinion, the collegium system was far from perfect yet it retained a key aspect which the NJAC does not, that is the primacy of the judiciary in judicial appointments. Through the provision of 2 members vetoing any proposed appointment, the government with the law minister and 2 nominated members, has the power to block any appointment which it does not approve.

Thus while the announcement of disbanding the planning commission met with approval from varied quarters and I personally am also of the view that the commission needs to be reimagined, the suddenness of the step minus any substantive discussion with the states does not augur well for the remaining institutions like the election commission, the CAG etc. Hope that another pearl is not added to the string of End of Institutions in India.

Shashank Shekhar Shukla

Author is a Social Entrepreneur in the field of education and a Mason fellow from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government