| |
EDITORIAL
The Day Of Judgement
The honourable judges should be modest about their own infallibility
 There
is no dispute over this: the judiciary continues to be an institution
of Last Hope in this country. To a great extent it is an honourably acquired
reputation, for justice doesn't often reach out from the ruler to the
ruled here. Now, the ongoing debate on the law of contempt raises a fundamental
question: does this formidable reputation, even if it is constitutionally
guaranteed, make the judiciary-and the judges-above the domain of public
criticism? True, there may be instances when the media is more sensational
and less revealing in its criticism of the judiciary. Then, the judiciary
too tends to be oversensitive towards criticism. Actually, it is a case
of freedom of questions versus the power of privilege, a case that provides
both the judiciary and the media with an opportunity to redefine the concepts
of retribution and responsibility.
First retribution. The law of contempt is meant
to be invoked in the rarest of cases. It is not a weapon to silence criticism
but a law to protect the dignity of the court. And the privileges of democracy
have made this law in many countries rather redundant. In the US, for
instance, it is almost non-existent, meant to be invoked in exceptional
cases, when there is an identifiable and immediate threat to the exercise
of justice. The so-called scandalising-the-court charge has become almost
a non-issue in the law of contempt even in Britain, whose legacy of jurisprudence
continues to be held in high esteem in this country. Judges too err, and
they, or the court, should not be retributive when the media, or the citizen,
says so. Perhaps the best way is to create a mechanism within to judge
the judges. If the media makes its own judgement with a sense of responsibility,
not with a quest for the sensational, the court should not take it as
contemptuous scandalisation. The honourable judges should be rather modest
about their own infallibility.
Good But Not Enough
Greater access to foreign investors is good; now make
investments hassle free
 Doing
good and doing enough aren't always the same. Not certainly when it comes
to encouraging foreign direct investment (FDI) into India. Last week's
lifting of floodgates for FDI is a good step. In sectors ranging from
pharmaceuticals to township development foreigners can now set up 100
per cent subsidiaries. They can also control up to 74 per cent of telecom
services like the ISPs. Even defence production-the most sacred bastion
of swadeshi control-has been opened, though with caveats. Intriguingly,
the print media still remains out of bounds for foreign investment. For
the government of India, the pen seems more dangerous than the sword.
Or it is unable to act against the powerful newspaper lobby that fears
foreign competition, making protection to print media an absurd exception.
But even such a big-bang opening up isn't good
enough to attain $10 billion FDI every year-a target governments since
1996 have been chasing without success. Actual annual FDI inflow since
1996 has averaged only $2.5 billion. That's just about 5 per cent of the
$45 billion FDI China gets every year. A survey of 1,000 global companies
by management consultant AT Kearney found most foreign investors sanguine
about India but reluctant to make investments. Reasons: bureaucracy, slow
reforms and poor infrastructure. Investors, both foreign and Indian, complain
most
of the bureaucratic hurdles. Foreign investors feel more flustered because
they are not used to the hurdles. Not that they have to. Developing countries
across the world are competing to offer a hassle-free business environment.
Clearly, just opening the doors for foreigners isn't enough. The Government
must also ensure that investors walking in through that door are able
to do business freely and fairly.
|
|
METRO TODAY
Web
Exclusives
