Topic 1 : Curb the disillusionment with the traditional rule of law.
Context: Citizens need to be aware of the grave dangers in the growing fad for a ‘shortcut’ or an ‘abridged’ rule of law model
Introduction
- The Dandi March, a Gandhi-led civil disobedience movement against the salt tax, set an example for respecting norms.
- However, the rule of law is facing a credibility crisis due to outdated laws and an altered perception of law as a power resource, shaped by social requirements. This crisis has led to disillusionments and a new credibility crisis in the rule of law.
Rule of Law
- The rule of law is a fundamental concept in the field of political and legal philosophy that emphasizes the importance of a legal system that is fair, just, and transparent. It is a principle that underlies democratic societies and helps ensure the protection of individual rights and liberties.
- Albert Venn Dicey, a British jurist and constitutional theorist, is widely known for his influential articulation of the principles of the rule of law. Dicey's understanding of the rule of law is often referred to as the "Diceyan principles." Here are the key aspects of Dicey's rule of law:
- Supremacy of Law
- Equality before the Law
- Predominance of Legal Spirit
Decriminalization of Penal laws
- The Indian government has implemented smart governance by amending and updating its penal laws. The Jan Vishwas Act, 2023, was passed to change 42 central Acts, including the Indian Post Office Act, Railways Act, and Cinematograph Act.
- The Act aims to facilitate business activities, reduce compliance burden, and promote trust-based governance by rationalizing monetary penalties and the gravity of offenses.
- The Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, were replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya (Second) Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha (Second) Sanhita, and the Bharatiya Sakshya (Second) Bill, 2023.
- These new penal laws aim to remove the colonial law legacy, update them to modern thinking, and rebuild the credibility crisis with the implementation of these laws. The aim is to restore the rule of law and improve the quality of life for businesses.
Crisis of Credibility
- The rule of law is crucial for democratic development, and the Rule of Law Index is an essential component of the national vision for development in the Viksit Bharat journey.
- However, the credibility crisis of the rule of law lies not at the normative level but at the reality of the law, constituted by the perceptions and experiences of consumers, enforcers, and command groups.
- The command group, constituted by the majoritarian will, decides the ways in which the rule of law is understood and used as a power resource.
- Policing through encounters and bulldozers has gained currency, replacing traditional investigation methods. These shortcuts are neither adequately debated nor subjected to pre-determined democratic checks and balances, leading to potential abuse at the ground level.
- Two examples of abuse that led to suffering are the shooting of a young car mechanic of Algerian descent in France, which led to large-scale violence and police action against thousands of youth, mostly of Arab and black origin.
- The allegations of custodial torture and civilian deaths in the Poonch district highlight the brutal, unacceptable high-handedness by security forces.
- The charges, circumstances, and guilty individuals must be thoroughly investigated and brought to book.
Looking ahead
- The traditional rule of law notion, that is premised on uniformity, predictability and certainty, is crucially hinged upon normative fidelity that requires going through a cycle of processes before arrival at a ‘guilty’ verdict leading to punishment.
- As against this, the modern day ‘short-cut’ or ‘abridged’ rule of law model looks for quick and reactive ways for doing repressive justice that focuses more on identifying the targeted accused either on the basis of majoritarian dictate or cryptic information reaching the police or the civic administration.
- Since the abridged rule of law does not require going through a fixed cycle of process, the first action itself, i.e., the encounter killing or destruction of property by ‘bulldozer’ may constitute the final sanction or punishment.
- Though the abridged rule of law delivers quick and reactive justice, it is crude and makes ‘justice’ a matter of chance, because it would be difficult to decide with certainty who shall be the next target — as an encounter killing or as the target of bulldozer action.
Conclusion
Fortunately for us, the government of the day continues to repose faith in the traditional rule of law. It is hoped that before it is too late, we should be alert to the dangers inherent in the growing fad for a ‘shortcut’ or an ‘abridged’ rule of law model.
Topic 2 : An ambitious push for values, ethics in higher education
Context: Unless there are sincere efforts to ensure that the provisions of Mulya Pravah 2.0 take effect, the UGC’s move may be a mere formality.
Introduction
- The University Grants Commission (UGC) has been issuing regulations, guidelines and directives at break neck speed that some of the important ones miss drawing the attention of the higher education community.
- One such guideline is Mulya Pravah 2.0, a modified version of Mulya Pravah, which was notified in 2019. It seeks to inculcate human values and professional ethics in higher education institutions.
- The stated intention is to build value-based institutions by orienting individuals and institutions towards developing a deep respect for fundamental duties and constitutional values and bonding with the country.
Unethical practices in various organisations.
- The trigger is the findings of a survey of human resource managers which highlight unethical practices in various organisations.
- The most prominent of these are “favouritism in hiring, training, pay and promotion; sexual harassment; gender discrimination in promotion; inconsistent view on discipline; lack of confidentiality; gender differentiation in compensation; non-performance factors overlooked in appraisals; arrangements with vendors for personal gain; and gender discrimination during recruitment and hiring”.
- These vices may not be specific or exclusive to higher education institutions but could be rampant among them. None can assert that they are free of malpractices.
- The UGC must get credit for notifying the guideline, though it may not be sufficient to curb corruption and violations of ethics and integrity.
- Unless backed by sincere efforts to ensure that the provisions of Mulya Pravah are effected in letter and spirit, the move may be no more than a mere formality.
The higher education regulator(s) must demonstrate zero tolerance and act swiftly to quell even the smallest trace of corruption in the admission, examination, hiring processes or, for that matter, in any aspect of university administration.
Mulya Pravah 2.0: Transparency in Higher Education Administration
- Emphasizes the need for transparency in administration, guiding decision-making solely by institutional and public interest.
- Aims to abolish discriminatory privileges of officials and punish corrupt practices.
- Stresses the importance of encouraging free thinking and advice at all levels.
- Requires higher education institutions to ensure integrity, trusteeship, harmony, accountability, inclusiveness, commitment, respectfulness, belongingness, sustainability, constitutional values, and global citizenship.
- Requires higher education administration to conduct matters ensuring accountability, transparency, fairness, honesty, and ethics.
- Requires officers and staff to avoid misappropriation of resources and refuse to accept gifts that may affect impartial performance of duties.
Issue of confidentiality
- The emphasis on the need for and the importance of maintaining the confidentiality of information is bemusing as it runs counter to the right of information as an instrument to ensure accountability.
- Higher education institutions must, in fact, be mandated to voluntarily disclose all critical information and subject themselves to public scrutiny.
- The guideline would do well to urge them to promptly upload agendas, proceedings and minutes of the meetings of their decision-making bodies, sub-committees and standing committees.
- They must put up their annual reports and audited accounts in the public domain. This will deter malpractices and go a long way in restoring public confidence in the workings of the institutions.
- Asserting that teaching is a noble profession, and that teachers play a crucial role in ‘shaping the character, personality, and career of the students’, it requires them to ‘act’ as role models and set examples of ‘good conduct, and a good standard of dress, speech and behaviour, worth emulating by students’.
- It asks them to abide by the provisions of the acts, statutes, ordinances, rules, policies, and procedures of their universities but maintain silence on the issue of teachers’ associations.
Union and support
- Mulya Pravah 2.0 requires staff and student unions to support the administration in development activities and raise issues in a dignified manner.
- However, this may seem like a push for them to act as the team B of the administration and avoid raising issues concerning their members.
- Higher education institutions should be communities of scholars where no one should be more equal than the other.
- Each stakeholder must be allowed to proactively participate in protecting, preserving, and promoting the culture and standards of their institutions.
- The provision of "raise issues in a dignified manner" could be misused to threaten, silence, or undermine the collective voices of stakeholders.
- The threat is real and imminent, as associations and unions of teachers, staff, and students have often been banned and suspended, accused of violating the code of conduct and acting against the interests of their institutions.
Many are fighting battles for their survival in courts of law.
Conclusion
- It is obvious that provisions such as these may cause more harm than good. Discordant voices may, at times, cause inconvenience to the powers that be. In the ultimate analysis, they only strengthen institutions by improving the quality and sustainability of the decisions.