Inderjit Badhwar Editor-in-Chief of India Legal magazine, nation's most exciting investigative current affairs fortnightly emphasizing unexplored legal angles for the judicial community and general readers. Started first issue with major investigation into suspicious death of Sunanda Pushkar.
Hi there,
Here's a sample editorial written for India Legal magazine by Inderjit Badhwar:
During a recent
brainstorming session, eminent lawyers who advise the India Legal editorial team suggested that we should plan a cover
story on the impact of judicial activism on India’s society. Does a pro-active
judiciary retard or enhance the process of social, economic and political
evolution?
This is, indeed, a
worthy subject, and will, in time, occupy the cover page of our fortnightly
magazine. But it needs immense research,
a variety of voices and international comparisons for it to become a
comprehensive statement and analysis on surely what will define future
political and juridical debate in this nation – thankfully, and hopefully still
a nation of laws rather than just men acting on whimsy and superstition.
Nonetheless, as we
prepare for this and even at the risk of having our competitors steal the idea
(Let them! Our belief at India Legal
is that no matter who does it, we do it better), it is timely that we open up
the discussion on this editorial page.
Election 2014 is upon
us. No matter who wins, this country is going to change in ways yet
unfathomable. But who will drive this change? The politicians? Media? Student
activists? Protesters? Judiciary? Maoist revolutionaries? Or NOTA?
The easy answer is,
all of the above. Because that’s what happens in a democracy. But my immediate
answer is that India has been politically, economically, socially asleep for
the last decade. In this somnolent state, democracy usually takes a beating.
And when democracy is seen to retreat in the face of corruption, a
megalomaniacal political culture of impunity takes centre stage. And when this
happens, the judiciary steps in to correct the imbalance and reflect the
people’s will where politicians are failing.
This happened in the
US in Judge Earl Warren’s time.
Decisions such as the Miranda
Warning and New York Times Vs
Sullivan which enhanced the rights of the accused and the press were later
condemned by US leaders as judicial excesses who then brought “strict
constructionist” judges to the benches. But these rulings had been necessary to
correct historical racial injustices and
societal imbalances engineered by conservatives.
In India judges have
stepped in where angels fear to tread. Nothing is sacrosanct: live-in
relationships; personal law; gay rights; dowry demands; rape laws; khap
panchayats; euthanasia; corporate fraud; cricket betting; mercy petitions;
telecom spectrum allocation. Critics call the Supreme Court India’s new super
cop often meting out vigilante justice. Supporters say the fight against
long-standing injustice needs bitter medicine even if it kills some innocent
bystanders. That’s the price you must pay to restore balance.
There’s no gainsaying
that the judiciary, with all its warts seems to be the only option
when the political system turns effete. Suffice it to say that what keeps the
people of Pakistan relatively free is the judiciary which politicians can defy
at their own peril.
But here are some
words of caution from Eric Posner, a professor of law at the University of
Chicago: “There doubtless has been a bubble in certain kinds of rights to legal
recovery, one that (like other bubbles) is perpetuated by delusion and
self-interest. But this bubble in rights has also created enormous benefits for
society. Indeed, it has eliminated abuses so basic that it is hard now to
imagine how our society could so recently have accepted them. There does not
seem to have been any way to create the conditions needed for these critically
important developments without also inviting opportunists, assuming they were
sufficiently shameless, to abuse the initially sound framework.”
He adds that those who try to improve the law have two
choices. As the professor puts it, the first option uses analysis—it describes not
just what a proposed reform will gain but also what it will sacrifice. The
second option uses rhetoric—it emphasizes a proposal’s upside, but obscures its
costs. Reformers frequently choose the second option, because they would
otherwise risk failing to inspire their audience to take action.
“But it is risky to
try to motivate people to change the law,” he warns, “by downplaying what they
will sacrifice in doing so—this tends to start a process that eventually recreates
in new forms the worst things (excess and rampant opportunism) about the
problems one is trying to solve. The overall result may be only to change the
identities of the people or institutions that get hurt, and not to reduce our
net exposure to legal error.”
The change agents now
driving this country’s political machines and judiciary would do well to mull
over Posner’s thoughts.
Here is the link of all India Legal issue, uploaded as online flip books. You may circulate it around.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment