NJAS And The Ambedkar Revival: Why His Ideas Matter More Than Ever

Ambedkar had to wait until 1990 to receive the Bharat Ratna. Emphasizing the importance of continuing his legacy serves as a reminder for modern India. This write-up aims to capture the essence of his vision and inspire readers to revisit and rediscover his ideas. Delving into Ambedkar's philosophy serves as a guide to creating a better India and pursuing a genuine path to social justice. 

The Supreme Court's 2015 verdict against the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) sparked controversy and debate within India. The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was established to appoint and transfer judges to the higher judiciary to increase transparency and accountability. However, the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC Act, declaring it unconstitutional and violating judicial independence. The Court objected to the NJAC's composition, which included politicians and the law minister, citing potential political interference in appointments. Critics argued that the verdict protected the judiciary's opaque appointment system, perpetuating a "judges-selecting-judges" approach, and undermining efforts to increase accountability and transparency. Dr. Ambedkar advocated for a fair and transparent system in judicial appointments, balancing independence with accountability.

In contrast, granting bail to those accused of corruption and terrorism for political reasons erodes the rule of law and public safety, echoing the concerns raised by the NJAC controversy. This trend sets the stage for total anarchy, prioritizing political convenience over accountability and justice. As emphasized by Jagdeep Dhankar, Parliament's sovereignty must prevail, and the judiciary must not usurp its powers. International examples and Ambedkar's vision underscore the need for a fair process. Granting bail for political reasons leads to a weak state and, ultimately, total anarchy.

Rajya Sabha Chairperson Jagdeep Dhankar on NJAS

Rajya Sabha Chairperson Jagdeep Dhankar strongly criticized the Supreme Court's 2015 verdict on the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) in his maiden address as chairman on December 8, 2022. He termed the verdict a "glaring instance of severe compromise on parliamentary sovereignty and disregard of the people's mandate," emphasizing the need to respect the will of the people and the primacy of Parliament.

Dhankar argued that the NJAC was a much-needed and historic step, receiving unprecedented support in Parliament. The Lok Sabha passed it unanimously, and the Rajya Sabha passed it with only one abstention. Additionally, 16 state assemblies supported the NJAC through legal proceedings, and the President of India approved the bill. However, the decision to strike down the NJAC Bill has sparked controversy and debate. Critics argue that the Supreme Court's decision is an attempt to maintain its power and vested interests, rather than serving the people's best interests. Dhankar stated that Parliament's sovereignty is "inviolable" and that the NJAC verdict needs to be reviewed. A fundamental principle of democracy is that parliament is responsible for making laws, while the judiciary's role is to interpret and implement them. This is echoed by Justice Felix Frankfurter, who said, "The Court's authority depends on the legitimacy of its decisions in the eyes of the people" (US Supreme Court, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943).

Moreover, international examples demonstrate the successful implementation of similar reforms. The 2005 Constitutional Reform Act in the UK established the Judicial Appointments Commission, while judgments of the US Supreme Court also support the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.

Dr. Ambedkar's Vision for Judicial Appointments: Independence, Fairness Transparency, and Accountability

He advocated for a system where judges would be appointed based on merit. Dr. Ambedkar's speeches and interventions in the Constitutional Assembly debates reflect his concern for balancing judicial independence with executive accountability in appointing judges. His speeches and interventions in the debates of the Constitutional Assembly are recorded in the "Constitutional Assembly Debates" (CAD) volumes. On June 21, 1947, in Volume III, pages 448-449 of CAD, Dr. Ambedkar emphasized the significance of judicial independence and the necessity of a fair and transparent process when discussing judicial appointments. On 24.09.1947, in Volume IV, pages 223-224 of the Constituent Assembly Debates, Dr. Ambedkar deliberated about the role of the Chief Justice in appointing judges. He explained that while the Chief Justice should have a say in appointing judges, he highlighted the need for executive oversight to prevent the judiciary from becoming too powerful. In the book "CAD, Vol. VII," pages 540-541, the date 04.11.1948 is mentioned. Dr. Ambedkar addressed concerns about potential biases in judicial appointments. He acknowledged that the Chief Justice, like any individual, may have personal biases and prejudices. He stressed the need for a fair and transparent process to mitigate these risks and ensure that judges are appointed based on merit.

Indian Traditions, Norms, and Conventions: Shaping Judicial Powers

Rig Veda (Sukta 5.55.1) states: "यथा जनः तथा राजा" ("Yatha janah tatha raja"), meaning "As are the people, so is the king." This emphasizes the king's reflection of the people's values in dispensing justice. The relationship between the ruler and the ruled is of paramount importance. The Mahabharata (Shanti Parva, 67.23) declares: "If the people are the true rulers of the earth, then there is no higher authority beyond them." (Source: "यदि जन्ता जनार्दनः स्यात्, तदा नास्ति कश्चित् प्रभुः"). This concept is reflected in various traditions such as 'Panj Pyare' and "Sarbat Khalsa" in Punjab and Sikh traditions, and "Panchayat" in general.

Bail for those accused of corruption and terrorism; are there any parallels?

Amid discussions about Deep State agents, granting bail to individuals facing serious charges like corruption or terrorism solely for political reasons raises concerns about undermining the rule of law and compromising public safety. Experts and scholars argue that doing so would be a clear attempt to prioritize political convenience over accountability and justice.

Internationally, renowned democracies prioritize safeguarding citizens' rights and upholding public trust in institutions. Granting bail to individuals facing serious charges would be viewed as a gross miscarriage of justice, sending a dangerous message that those with political power or influence are above the law. Examples from vibrant democracies demonstrate this. Rod Blagojevich (USA), the former Illinois Governor, was denied bail on corruption charges. Marine Le Pen (France) was charged with embezzlement and misuse of public funds but was not granted bail to campaign. Former President Lula da Silva (Brazil) was imprisoned on corruption charges and denied bail to run in the presidential election.

As aptly stated by Yale Law Professor Judith Resnik, "Bail should not be used as a tool for political advantage; it undermines the integrity of the justice system." Ian Buruma, Author and Journalist, concurs, "Allowing candidates to campaign from prison would be a mockery of democracy and the rule of law." Anne Applebaum, Author and Historian, warns, "This would be a violation of democratic norms and would undermine trust in institutions." Ahmed Rashid, Author and Journalist, emphasizes, "Granting bail to terrorism accused can compromise national security and undermine counter-terrorism efforts." 

Conclusion

The gravity of granting bail to individuals accused of corruption and terrorism solely for political purposes cannot be understated. This alarming trend paves the way for total anarchy, fostering a perilous environment where those with political influence are perceived to be above the law. Such a scenario not only emboldens criminal elements but also jeopardizes the safety of citizens. Unless this issue is addressed effectively, it has the potential to lead to a complete breakdown of law and order, plunging India into chaos and anarchy. In this context, Dr. Ambedkar's ideas and legacy remain indispensable, especially in light of the NJAC controversy and India's broader social and political landscape.

#AmbedkarLegacy, #JudicialPowers, #IndianTraditions, #NJACControversy, #PoliticalConvenience, #AccountabilityMatters, #TransparencyInJudiciary, #SocialJusticeForAll, #ParliamentarySovereignty, #JudicialIndependence, #DemocraticNorms, #RuleOfLaw, #PublicSafetyFirst, #TotalAnarchy, #DeepState, #Corruption, #Terrorism, #BailReform, #JudicialAppointments, #FairProcess, #MeritBasedAppointments, #ExecutiveOversight, #JudicialAccountability, #ConstitutionalReforms, #DemocracyInDanger, #IndiaInPeril