Yes, you're right — Dr. B. R. Ambedkar made a profound statement on this very idea in his concluding speech to the Constituent Assembly of India on November 25, 1949. Here's the exact quotation:
Saturday, April 19, 2025
Thursday, April 17, 2025
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar: సుప్రీంకోర్టుకు ఆ అధికారం అణు క్షిపణిలా మారింది
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar: సుప్రీంకోర్టుకు ఆ అధికారం అణు క్షిపణిలా మారింది
ABN , Publish Date - Apr 18 , 2025 | 03:49 AM
సుప్రీంకోర్టు ఆర్టికల్ 142 ఉపయోగం ప్రజాస్వామ్య శక్తులకు వ్యతిరేకంగా మారిందని ఉప రాష్ట్రపతి జగదీప్ ధన్ఖడ్ విమర్శించారు. రాష్ట్రపతి, గవర్నర్లపై న్యాయమూర్తుల అద్భుతమైన అధికారాలపై ఆయన తీవ్ర వ్యాఖ్యలు చేశారు
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar: సుప్రీంకోర్టుకు ఆ అధికారం అణు క్షిపణిలా మారింది
ప్రజాస్వామ్య శక్తులకు వ్యతిరేకంగా ఆర్టికల్ 142 అధికారాలు
రాష్ట్రపతిని సుప్రీంకోర్టు ఎలా నిర్దేశిస్తుంది?
ఢిల్లీ హైకోర్టు జడ్జి ఇంట్లో దొరికిన నగదుపై దర్యాప్తు ఏమైంది?
ఎఫ్ఐఆర్ ఎందుకు నమోదు కాలేదు?.. జడ్జీలు అతీతమా?
చట్టాలు చేసేది వారే.. అమలు చేసేది వారే..
వారే సూపర్ పార్లమెంట్ అన్నట్టు పరిస్థితి ఉంది
ఉప రాష్ట్రపతి జగదీప్ ధన్ఖడ్ సంచలన వ్యాఖ్యలు
న్యూఢిల్లీ, ఏప్రిల్ 17 (ఆంధ్రజ్యోతి): బిల్లులు ఆమోదించేందుకు సుప్రీంకోర్టు రాష్ట్రపతికి గడువు విధించడాన్ని ఉప రాష్ట్రపతి జగదీప్ ధన్ఖడ్ తీవ్రంగా తప్పుపట్టారు. దేశంలో చట్టాలు చేసేదీ వారే, అమలు చేసేదీ వారే అన్నట్టుగా న్యాయమూర్తులు వ్యవహరిస్తున్నారని వ్యాఖ్యానించారు. వారు చట్టాలకు అతీతమన్నట్టుగా, సూపర్ పార్లమెంటు అన్నట్టుగా పరిస్థితి మారిపోయింఠిదని విమర్శించారు. సుప్రీంకోర్టుకు ప్రత్యేక అధికారాలు కల్పించే రాజ్యాంగంలోని ఆర్టికల్ 142.. దేశంలో ప్రజాస్వామ్య శక్తులకు వ్యతిరేకంగా 24 గంటలూ న్యాయవ్యవస్థకు అందుబాటులో ఉన్న అణు క్షిపణిలా మారిందని వ్యాఖ్యానించారు. దేశంలో అందరికంటే అత్యున్నత స్థానంలో ఉన్న రాష్ట్రపతికి సుప్రీంకోర్టు ఆదేశాలు ఇచ్చే పరిస్థితి ఉండకూడదని.. బిల్లులు ఆమోదించేందుకు రాష్ట్రపతికి గడువు విధించడం సరికాదని స్పష్టం చేశారు. గురువారం 6వ బ్యాచ్ రాజ్యసభ ఇంటర్నీలను ఉద్దేశించి ఉప రాష్ట్రపతి ప్రసంగించారు. రాష్ట్రపతి, గవర్నర్ల అధికారాలకు సంబంధించి ఇటీవల సుప్రీంకోర్టు ఇచ్చిన ఆదేశాలు, ఢిల్లీ హైకోర్టు న్యాయమూర్తి జస్టిస్ యశ్వంత్ వర్మ ఇంట్లో భారీగా నగదు దొరికిన అంశాలను ప్రస్తావిస్తూ... న్యాయవ్యవస్థ తీరుపై తీవ్ర విమర్శలు గుప్పించారు.
పాలకులూ వారే అన్నట్టుగా..
‘‘రాష్ట్రపతికే ఆదేశాలు జారీ చేస్తున్నామంటే మనం ఎక్కడికి వెళుతున్నామో తెలియడం లేదు. ఇది కోర్టులో సమీక్ష పిటిషన్ వేయాల్సిన చిన్న విషయం కాదు. నిర్దిష్టకాలంలో రాష్ట్రపతి నిర్ణయం తీసుకోకుంటే చట్టంగా మారినట్టే అని సుప్రీంకోర్టు పేర్కొంది. అంటే న్యాయమూర్తులే చట్టాలు చేస్తున్నారు. వారే కార్యనిర్వాహక విధులు నిర్వహిస్తున్నారు. అంటే సూపర్ పార్లమెంట్గా వ్యవహరిస్తున్నారు. కానీ వారికి ఏమాత్రం జవాబుదారీ లేదు. ఎందుకంటే చట్టాలు వారికి వర్తించవు’’ అని ధన్ఖడ్ వ్యాఖ్యానించారు.
వారు చట్టాలకు అతీతమా?
ఢిల్లీ హైకోర్టు న్యాయమూర్తి యశ్వంత్ వర్మ నివాసంలో భారీగా నగదు దొరకడాన్ని ప్రస్తావిస్తూ ధన్ఖడ్ తీవ్ర వ్యాఖ్యలు చేశారు. ‘‘మార్చి 14న రాత్రి జడ్జి నివాసంలో జరిగిన ఘటన గురించి వారం దాకా ఎవరికీ తెలియదు. ఎందుకీ ఆలస్యం? అది సమర్థనీయమేనా? సాధారణ న్యాయసూత్రాల ప్రకారం పరిస్థితి వేరుగా ఉండేది. కానీ జడ్జి కాబట్టి భిన్నంగా జరిగింది. మార్చి 21న ఓ వార్తాపత్రికలో ఈ విషయం చూసి దేశ ప్రజలు దిగ్ర్భాంతి చెందారు. కానీ ఆ న్యాయమూర్తిపై ఎలాంటి ఎఫ్ఐఆర్ దాఖలు కాలేదు. ఉప రాష్ట్రపతి అయిన నాతో సహా దేశంలో ఎవరిపై అయినా ఎఫ్ఐఆర్ నమోదు చేయవచ్చు. రూల్ ఆఫ్ లాను అమలు చేసేందుకు ఏ అనుమతీ అక్కర్లేదు. కానీ న్యాయమూర్తులపై నేరుగా ఎఫ్ఐఆర్ నమోదు చేయలేం. న్యాయ వ్యవస్థలో సంబంధిత వ్యక్తులు ఆమోదించాల్సి ఉంటుంది. దేశంలో రాష్ట్రపతి, గవర్నర్లకు మాత్రమే ప్రాసిక్యూషన్ నుంచి రాజ్యాంగం మినహాయింపు ఇచ్చింది. కానీ న్యాయమూర్తులకు అందుకు అతీతంగా ఎలా మినహాయింపు అందుతోంది?’’ అని ధన్ఖడ్ నిలదీశారు. భారీగా నగదు దొరకడాన్ని ప్రస్తావిస్తూ.. మరెవరి విషయంలోనైనా ఇలా జరిగి ఉంటే రాకెట్ వేగంతో విచారణ సాగేదని, కానీ ఈ విషయంలో ఎడ్లబండి నడకలా కూడా సాగడం లేదని వ్యాఖ్యానించారు. దర్యాప్తు అనేది కార్యనిర్వాహకవర్గం బాధ్యత అని ధన్ఖడ్ గుర్తు చేశారు. జడ్జి ఇంట్లో నగదు దొరికిన కేసును పోలీసు దర్యాప్తు చేయకుండా.. ముగ్గురు న్యాయమూర్తుల బెంచ్ ఎందుకు విచారిస్తోందని ప్రశ్నించారు. ఆ జడ్జీల కమిటీకి పార్లమెంట్ చేసిన ఏ చట్టం నుంచైనా అనుమతి లభించిందా? అని నిలదీశారు. అయినా జడ్జీల కమిటీ మహా అయితే సిఫార్సు చేస్తుందని, దానికి ఎలాంటి చట్టబద్ధత ఉండదని స్పష్టం చేశారు. చివరికి పార్లమెంట్ మాత్రమే చర్య తీసుకోగలదని తెలిపారు.
విశ్వాసం తగ్గిపోతోంది..
న్యాయవ్యవస్థపై ప్రజల విశ్వాసం రోజురోజుకూ తగ్గిపోతోందని, ఇటీవల ఒక మీడియా సంస్థ నిర్వహించిన సర్వేలో తేలిందని ఉప రాష్ట్రపతి చెప్పారు. న్యాయవ్యవస్థ, చట్టసభలు, కార్యనిర్వాహకవర్గం పారదర్శకంగా, జవాబుదారీగా వ్యవహరించాలని సూచించారు. చట్టం ముందు అందరూ సమానమనే దాన్ని విస్మరించవద్దని సూచించారు. న్యాయవ్యవేస్థ ప్రభుత్వ బాధ్యతలు నిర్వర్తిస్తే ఎలాగని, అది ఎవరికి జవాబుదారీ అవుతుందని ప్రశ్నించారు. ఈ ఏడాది జనవరి 27న సుప్రీంకోర్టు మాజీ న్యాయమూర్తి నేతృత్వంలోని ఏడుగురు సభ్యుల లోక్పాల్ బెంచ్.. కొందరు హైకోర్టు న్యాయమూర్తులపై వచ్చిన అవినీతి ఆరోపణలపై విచారణ చేపట్టిందని ధన్ఖడ్ గుర్తు చేశారు. కానీ దానిని సుప్రీంకోర్టు తనంతట తానే స్వాధీనంలోకి తీసుకుందన్నారు. ఇతర దేశాల్లో న్యాయవ్యవస్థలు ఇలా తమంతట తాము విచారణలను స్వాధీనంలోకి తీసుకున్న సందర్భాలు లేవని స్పష్టం చేశారు. సంస్థలు పారదర్శకతతో వ్యవహరించాలని, దర్యాప్తులు, విచారణలు లేనప్పుడు పరిస్థితిని ఎలా అర్థం చేసుకోవాలని ప్రశ్నించారు. ఎలాంటి పరిశీలన లేకుండా వ్యక్తులకు మనం ఆరాధనీయమైన స్థానం కల్పిస్తున్నామని పేర్కొన్నారు.
Wednesday, March 19, 2025
Supreme Court's Big Remark On Freebies Feb 12, 2025
Are We Not Creating Class Of Parasites?"
"Are We Not Creating Class Of Parasites?" Supreme Court's Big Remark On FreebiesThe Supreme Court was hearing a matter on the right to shelter of homeless persons in urban areas.
Reported by:
Ashish Bhargava
India News
Feb 12, 2025 17:59 pm IST
Published On
Feb 12, 2025 17:59 pm IST
Last Updated On
Feb 12, 2025 17:59 pm IST
Read Time:
4 mins
Share
TwitterWhatsAppFacebookRedditEmail
"Are We Not Creating Class Of Parasites?" Supreme Court's Big Remark On Freebies
The bench said people were getting ration and money without working.New Delhi:
Making strong observations on the practice of political parties announcing freebies ahead of elections, the Supreme Court has said people are "not willing to work" because of them and wondered whether a "class of parasites" was being created in the country.
Hearing a matter on the right to shelter of homeless persons in urban areas, a bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih said people were getting ration and money without working.
"Rather than promoting them to be a part of the mainstream of the society by contributing to the development of the nation, are we not creating a class of parasites?" the bench asked.
Pulling no punches, Justice Gavai referred to the 'Ladki Bahin' scheme in Maharashtra - under which women in the age group of 21-65 with an annual family income of less than Rs 2.5 lakh get Rs 1,500 per month - and similar programmes run by ruling parties in other states and said, "Unfortunately, because of these freebies, which just on the anvil of elections are declared, like 'Ladki Bahin' and other schemes, people are not willing to work... They are getting free ration and money without doing any work."
"We quite appreciate your concern for them but would it not be better to make them a part of the mainstream of society and permit them to contribute to the development of the nation?" the bench asked.
When Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for one of the petitioners, said there was hardly anybody in the country who did not want to work if they got work, he was interrupted by Justice Gavai, who went on to cite an example.
"You must be having only one-sided knowledge. I come from an agricultural family. Because of the freebies in Maharashtra which they announced just prior to elections, agriculturists are not getting labourers," he said.
'Need For Balance'
The bench noted that everybody, including Attorney General R Venkataramani, was on the same page that providing shelter to the homeless merited attention but asked, "At the same time, should it not be balanced?"
Mr Venkataramani said the Centre was finalising the urban poverty alleviation mission, which would tackle issues like providing shelter to the urban homeless. The bench asked the Attorney General for a timeline and also said the Centre should gather information from all states so that the issue could be considered on a pan-India basis.
When one of the petitioners said the cause of the homeless was not being addressed as it was last on the priority and that the authorities showed compassion only for the rich and not the poor, his arguments were shot down by Justice Gavai.
"Don't make a political speech here. We won't permit our courtrooms to be converted into (an arena for) political battle... How do you say the compassion is shown only for the rich? Even for the government, how can you say this?"
The matter will now be heard after six weeks.
This is not the first time the Supreme Court has spoken out against freebies. In December, a bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Manmohan was surprised when it was informed by the Centre that 81 crore people are being given free or subsidised ration under the National Food Security Act of 2013.
On migrant workers who have been receiving free ration since the Covid pandemic, the bench had said, "For how long can freebies be given? Why don't we work to create job opportunities, employment and capacity building for these migrant workers?"
Delhi High Court's Refusal
The Supreme Court's observations came on a day when the Delhi High Court refused to hear a petition filed by a former judge against freebies promised by the Aam Aadmi Party, Congress and BJP ahead of the Delhi Assembly elections on February 5.
In his complaint, Justice SN Dhingra said such promises made by parties amounted to corrupt practices under the Representation of People Act and sought directions to the Election Commission to declare them "unconstitutional". The high court asked the former judge to approach the Supreme Court after it was told that a similar case was already pending before it.
The distribution of freebies has also become a political issue and Prime Minister Narendra Modi has frequently attacked the AAP, Congress and other parties, accusing them of trying to buy people's votes by distributing "revdis". Hitting back, the parties have attacked the BJP-led government's track record on inflation and unemployment and said there is nothing wrong with taxpayer money being used to make people's lives easier.
Supreme Court Flags Ration Card Misuse, Says Its Now A "Popularity Card"
Observing that ration cards have become a "popularity card", the Supreme Court on Wednesday wondered if the benefits meant for the poor percolated to undeserving persons. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh said the benefit of subsidies should reach the genuine beneficiaries.15 hours ago.
Supreme Court Flags Ration Card Misuse, Says Its Now A "Popularity Card" A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh said the benefit of subsidies should reach the genuine beneficiaries.
Press Trust of India
India News
Mar 19, 2025 21:22 pm IST
Published On
Mar 19, 2025 21:22 pm IST
Last Updated On
Mar 19, 2025 21:22 pm IST
Read Time:
5 mins
Share
TwitterWhatsAppFacebookRedditEmail
Supreme Court Flags Ration Card Misuse, Says Its Now A "Popularity Card"
The bench was hearing a plea in a suo motu case (File)New Delhi:
Observing that ration cards have become a "popularity card", the Supreme Court on Wednesday wondered if the benefits meant for the poor percolated to undeserving persons.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh said the benefit of subsidies should reach the genuine beneficiaries.
"Our concern is... are benefits meant for the genuinely poor persons percolating to those pockets who do not deserve it? Ration card has become a popularity card now," said Justice Surya Kant.
The judge went on, "These states just say we have issued these many cards. There are some states who when they have to show their development they say our per capita income is growing. And then when we talk of BPL, they say 75 per cent of the population is BPL. How can these facts be reconciled? The conflict is inherent. We have to ensure that benefits reach the genuine beneficiaries." The top court observed that states showed a high per capita growth when asked to highlight the development index but claimed 75 per cent of their population was below poverty line when it came to subsidies.
The bench was hearing a plea in a suo motu case initiated during the COVID19 pandemic to address the miseries of migrant labourers.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for some intervenors, said the anomaly stemmed from the inequalities in the income of people.
"There are a handful of people, who have huge wealth as compared to other population and per capita income figure is average of total income of the state. The rich continue to be getting richer while the poor remain poor," he said.
The poor migrant workers, who are registered in the e-shram portal of the government, need to be given free ration and the figure was around eight crore people, Bhushan said.
Justice Surya Kant said, "We hope that in the issuance of ration cards, there are no political elements involved. I have not lost my roots. I always want to know the plight of the poor. There are families who continue to be poor." Bhushan said the Centre did not conduct the 2021 Census and was continuing to rely on data from the 2011 Census as a result around 10 crore people, requiring free ration, remained out of the BPL categories.
Additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre said the government was giving free ration to around 81.35 crore people under the National Food Security Act and another 11 crore people were covered by another similar scheme.
The bench adjourned the matter and asked the Centre to file its response on the status of free ration distributed to the poor.
On December 9, last year, the top court frowned upon the freebie culture and stressed on the need to create job opportunities and capacity building for migrant workers.
It was surprised when the Centre informed the court that 81 crore people were being given free or subsidised ration under the National Food Security Act of 2013.
"It means only the tax-payers are left out," it then said.
Bhushan had contended that directions were issued by the top court from time to time to all states and union territories to issue ration cards to migrant workers for availing free ration provided by the Centre.
On November 26, last year, the top court flagged the difficulties surrounding the distribution of freebies and said Covid times were different when distressed migrant workers were provided the relief.
In a judgment on June 29, 2021, and subsequent orders, the top court passed a slew of directions to the authorities asking them to undertake welfare measures, including giving ration cards to all migrant workers, who were in distress during the COVID-19 pandemic, registered with the e-shram portal.
The portal is a comprehensive national database of unorganised workers launched by the Union Ministry of Labour and Employment with the primary aim of facilitating the delivery of welfare benefits and social security measures to the country's unorganised sector workers.
On September 2, last year, the top court asked the Centre to file an affidavit giving details about compliance with its 2021 judgement and subsequent directions on providing ration cards and other welfare measures to migrant workers.
The Centre previously said it was providing ration to all those people who were eligible under the National Food Security Act.
The top court, in the 2021 judgement, termed as "unpardonable" the Centre's "apathy and lackadaisical attitude" towards creating the national database for unorganised workers and ordered its commencement by July 31, 2021, for the registration of all migrant workers and providing them with welfare measures.
It had ordered the states and union territories to frame schemes for providing free dry ration to them till the pandemic lasted while asking the Centre to allocate additional foodgrains and directing the department concerned to "allocate and distribute food grains" to migrant labourers".
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
Ajit Doval - Rustamji Memorial Lecture 2024 full Text
Ajit Doval - Rustamji Memorial Lecture 2024 full Text
Can CRPF & BSF perform each others’ duties? NSA Ajit Doval explores idea of ‘interoperability’
‘Vulnerable’ borders stand in the way of India’s economic growth, says NSA Doval at a BSF event, adding that without border security, it's impossible to ensure internal security.
Mayank Kumar
24 May, 2024 10:48 pm IST
NSA Ajit Doval at the BSF investiture ceremony | ANI
New Delhi: Calling the vulnerability of India’s international borders one of the challenges in the path of the country’s future economic prosperity, National Security Adviser Ajit Doval Friday pitched the idea of integrating the Central Police Organisations (CPOs) to ensure that different forces achieve “interoperability” to bring about “homogeneity” in their actions.
Discussing the idea, Doval explored the possibility of mobilising the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), which now has the mandate to maintain law and order in states, for anti-naxal operations along the border at times and in places where the Border Security Force (BSF) has the mandate of functioning. Similarly, he explored if the BSF could, at times, be used to deal with challenges to internal security.
Saying that other sectors are seeing this kind of integration, he said CPOs could achieve it because of similar training, equipment and command structures. He, however, prefixed a caveat, saying he was “speaking as an IPS officer and not as an NSA of India.”
Delivering the annual Rustamji Memorial Lecture, held Friday in memory of the first Director General of the Border Security Force, K.F. Rustamji, on the occasion of the BSF’s 21st Investiture Ceremony, Doval said India’s economic growth would have been more rapid and smooth had it not faced adversarial positions on the northern and western borders.
“The weight of border vulnerability was always on internal security — in terms of terrorism, radical ideas, and thoughts that come, drug trafficking, arms smuggling, human trafficking, organised crimes. You name, and we find that. Because of adversarial relations, we find it difficult to manage these situations, or it has become a liability for our internal security,” NSA Doval said during his nearly half-an-hour lecture.
Further emphasising the importance of border security, NSA Doval said that while defining the limit of a nation’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, it is also essential for maintaining internal security. “Unless our borders are secure, our internal security is not under control,” he said.
Friday, February 14, 2025
from a pro-welfare stance to a more pro-corporate orientation
The transformation of the Indian judiciary, including the Supreme Court of India, from a pro-welfare stance to a more pro-corporate orientation over the past 75 years reflects broader socio-economic and political changes in the country. This shift can be traced through key judgments, constitutional interpretations, and the evolving role of the judiciary in balancing individual rights, welfare policies, and corporate interests. Below is an elaboration of this evolution, citing specific cases and judgments:
1. Early Years (1950s–1970s): Pro-Welfare and Social Justice Orientation
In the early years after independence, the Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, focused on upholding the welfare state model enshrined in the Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV of the Constitution). The Court emphasized social justice, equitable distribution of resources, and the protection of fundamental rights.
Key Cases:
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951): This case highlighted the conflict between fundamental rights and directive principles. The Court ruled that fundamental rights (Part III) prevailed over directive principles, but it also underscored the importance of affirmative action for social welfare.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): The landmark case introduced the basic structure doctrine, ensuring that the Constitution's core values, including social justice and welfare, could not be amended. This case reinforced the judiciary's role in protecting the welfare state.
During this period, the judiciary often sided with the government's welfare policies, such as land reforms, nationalization of industries, and labor rights.
2. 1980s–1990s: Balancing Welfare and Economic Liberalization
The 1980s saw the beginning of economic liberalization, and the judiciary started to balance welfare policies with the needs of economic growth. This period marked a gradual shift in the Court's approach, as it began to recognize the importance of private enterprise and foreign investment.
Key Cases:
Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): The Court reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine and emphasized the harmony between fundamental rights and directive principles. However, it also acknowledged the need for economic development.
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): This case highlighted the right to livelihood as part of the right to life under Article 21. While it was a pro-welfare judgment, it also reflected the Court's awareness of urban development and corporate interests.
The 1991 economic reforms marked a turning point, as India embraced globalization, privatization, and liberalization. The judiciary began to adapt to these changes, recognizing the role of corporations in driving economic growth.
3. 2000s–2010s: Pro-Corporate Shift and Economic Growth
The post-liberalization era saw a significant shift in the judiciary's approach, with a greater emphasis on facilitating economic growth, protecting corporate interests, and encouraging foreign investment. This period also saw the rise of public interest litigation (PIL), which was sometimes used to address corporate concerns.
Key Cases:
Vodafone International Holdings v. Union of India (2012): The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Vodafone, setting aside a tax demand of over $2 billion. The judgment was seen as pro-corporate, emphasizing the need for a stable and predictable tax regime to attract foreign investment.
Reliance Natural Resources Limited v. Reliance Industries Limited (2010): The Court's intervention in this corporate dispute highlighted its role in resolving complex commercial matters, often favoring corporate efficiency and contractual obligations.
SEBI v. Sahara India Real Estate Corporation (2012): The Court upheld the regulatory framework for protecting investors, but it also reinforced the importance of corporate accountability and transparency.
During this period, the judiciary also supported policies like the Goods and Services Tax (GST) and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), which were aimed at creating a business-friendly environment.
4. Recent Years (2010s–2020s): Pro-Corporate Stance and Judicial Activism
In recent years, the Supreme Court has increasingly taken a pro-corporate stance, often prioritizing economic growth and corporate interests over welfare policies. This shift is evident in cases involving environmental clearances, land acquisition, and labor laws.
Key Cases:
Sterlite Industries Case (2018): The Court allowed the reopening of the Sterlite copper plant in Tamil Nadu, despite concerns about environmental pollution and public protests. The judgment emphasized the importance of industrial growth and employment generation.
Aadhaar Judgment (2018): While the Court upheld the constitutional validity of Aadhaar, it also allowed its use for corporate purposes, such as linking it to bank accounts and mobile numbers, which raised concerns about privacy and data protection.
ArcelorMittal Case (2018): The Court approved the takeover of bankrupt Essar Steel by ArcelorMittal, prioritizing the resolution of corporate debt and the interests of creditors over those of workers and smaller stakeholders.
The judiciary has also supported government initiatives like Make in India and Digital India, which are aimed at boosting corporate investment and economic growth.
Factors Contributing to the Shift
Economic Liberalization: The 1991 reforms necessitated a shift in the judiciary's approach to align with the needs of a market-driven economy.
Globalization: Increased foreign investment and global trade required the judiciary to create a favorable legal environment for corporations.
Corporate Influence: The growing influence of corporate lobbying and the rise of corporate law firms have shaped legal discourse and judicial outcomes.
Judicial Pragmatism: The judiciary has increasingly recognized the importance of economic growth and job creation, often prioritizing these over welfare policies.
Criticism and Concerns
While the pro-corporate shift has contributed to economic growth, it has also raised concerns about:
Environmental Degradation: Fast-tracking clearances for industrial projects has led to ecological damage.
Labor Rights: Judgments favoring corporate efficiency have often undermined workers' rights.
Social Inequality: The focus on corporate interests has sometimes come at the expense of marginalized communities and welfare policies.
Conclusion
The Indian judiciary's transformation from a pro-welfare to a pro-corporate stance reflects the country's evolving economic priorities. While this shift has facilitated economic growth and global integration, it has also sparked debates about the balance between corporate interests and social justice. The Supreme Court's role in navigating this complex landscape will continue to shape India's socio-economic future.
Judiciary - From pro-welfare policies to pro-corporate stance
కారుణ్యం నుండి కార్పొరేట్ల సేవలో
The Supreme Court of India has undergone a significant transformation over the decades in its approach towards corporate interests, affirmative action, and social welfare. Initially, the court was a champion of socialist and pro-welfare policies, but in the post-liberalization era, especially in the last two decades, it has increasingly sided with corporate interests and diluted affirmative action measures. Below is an evolution of this shift, along with key cases that illustrate this trend.
I. Early Years: Socialist Leaning and Welfare-Oriented Approach (1950s–1970s)
During this period, the Supreme Court largely upheld state intervention in the economy and supported socialist policies. This was evident in cases such as:
Champakam Dorairajan Case (1951) – Initially struck down caste-based reservations, but Parliament responded with the First Amendment to the Constitution, introducing Article 15(4) to enable affirmative action.
Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) – The court ruled that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights, which was later overturned to uphold welfare-oriented amendments.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) – Though the court limited Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, it allowed economic policies favoring social justice.
During this phase, the Supreme Court generally supported land reforms, nationalization policies, and welfare schemes.
II. Shift Towards Economic Liberalization (1980s–1990s)
During the tenure of Chief Justices like P.N. Bhagwati and Krishna Iyer, the court actively engaged in Public Interest Litigations (PILs), expanding access to justice for marginalized communities. However, as liberalization began in 1991, the court started favoring economic policies aligned with privatization.
Key cases:
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) – Upheld the Mandal Commission recommendations for OBC reservations but imposed the "50% cap" on reservations, limiting affirmative action.
BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India (2002) – The court ruled that economic policy decisions, such as disinvestment, were beyond judicial review, signaling a pro-privatization stance.
This era saw a gradual retreat from socialist principles, with the court allowing privatization and limiting state intervention in corporate matters.
III. Corporate Dominance and Weakening of Affirmative Action (2000s–Present)
With globalization, the Supreme Court increasingly supported corporate interests while diluting social welfare programs and affirmative action.
1. Pro-Corporate Decisions
Vedanta Sterlite Case (2013, 2019, 2023) – The court allowed Vedanta’s controversial copper plant to continue operations despite environmental violations, showing leniency towards corporate polluters.
Adani Coal Mine Cases (2019–2023) – The Supreme Court upheld government decisions favoring Adani Group in coal mining and port projects, overlooking environmental and displacement concerns.
Vodafone Tax Case (2012) – The court ruled in favor of Vodafone, striking down retrospective taxation, benefiting large corporations at the cost of government revenue.
2. Dilution of Affirmative Action
Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018) – The Supreme Court ruled against the "creamy layer" in SC/ST reservations, restricting reservation benefits within these communities.
NEET Reservation Cases (2021–2023) – The court has consistently delayed or struck down state-specific affirmative action measures in medical education.
3. Anti-Welfare Rulings
Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (2018) – Diluted the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act by making it difficult to file cases, though later overturned after protests.
Demonetization Case (2023) – The Supreme Court upheld demonetization despite its devastating impact on small businesses and workers, reinforcing government economic policies favoring big players.
Why This Shift?
Judicial Appointments and Collegium Bias – Post-liberalization, judges with pro-corporate and neoliberal inclinations have been increasingly appointed.
Influence of Globalization and Neoliberalism – The judiciary aligns with economic liberalization policies, treating corporate growth as "national interest."
Weakening of PILs and Activism – The judiciary that once expanded rights through PILs has now become more status quo-oriented, limiting social justice interventions.
Judicial Overreach in Economic Policy – While earlier courts protected state welfare schemes, the modern court often upholds economic policies favoring corporate expansion.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court, once an institution protecting social justice and affirmative action, has steadily shifted towards a pro-corporate stance while diluting social welfare measures. Landmark cases illustrate this transition, showing increasing judicial deference to big businesses and a growing reluctance to uphold progressive social policies. This shift is a reflection of broader economic and political trends in India post-1991.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)