Nothing will do coz its 142

We have unfettered powers under Article 142 to render substantive justice: Supreme Court

Many a times, there comes a situation over which earlier to that no one has paid heed into. No one has thought that anything of such nature can also come into picture and we should have done something about the same in advance.

For e.g. the recent flood of Chennai. No one had ever thought that a metropolitan city like Chennai can also face situation like this. This happened because earlier to this, none paid attention to subject matters like development of properly planned infrastructure.

To avoid the situations like above, the framers of the Indian Constitution inserted article 141 and 142. They were of the view that for once and all there comes a situation when issues can’t be dealt with any existing law and would be of such nature that ignoring the same will amount to great injustice. In those circumstances, the man shall not be left with his scars feeling pity on him. Rather, there should be a mechanism which shall immediately come up to rescue him and shall provide a shelter of justice.

There have been various instances where the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has stood up to this thought process. Be it the case of Vishakha v State of Rajasthan where the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the guidelines to protect a woman from sexual harassment at its workplace or be it Bandhua Mukti Morcha Case where the Hon’ble Court gave its landmark judgment on bonded labour system of India or be it the Olga Tellis Case where the Hon’ble Court declared that Right to livelihood is part and parcel of the right to life. The Hon’ble Court standing up with these principles have gone leaps and bounds protecting the rights of human civilization as well as of the animals and nature (MC Mehta Cases). These all were done and guaranteed to us by the Hon’ble Court when either the interpretation of laws was required or there were no laws to deal such situations.

Right to Education is one of the most widely known outcomes of this situation.

That is why Article 141 and 142 exists in the Constitution of India and that is why so much of power have been given to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide these Articles mandating all to comply with the same.

This is the reason that these articles have been included in the basic structure doctrine along with Article 32 and Article 136.

141. The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.

142. (1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or order so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe.

(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.

Recently, Supreme Court of India appointed the new Lokayukta of Uttar Pradesh, by exercising powers granted by Article 142of the Constitution.
The state government had amended the state act with a provision that: Lokayukta shall, notwithstanding the expiration of his term, continue to hold office until his successor enters upon his office. With this act, Lokayukta N K Mehrotra of UP continued in office more than prescribed term. This amendment was challenged in the court, and as result of which the Supreme Court directed the state government to appoint new Lokayukta within six months from the date of verdict. But with the state government failing to comply with the orders, the Supreme Court exercised the powers granted to it via Article 142 of Indian Constitution to appoint Virendra Singh as the new Lokayukta of UP.

Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do ‘complete justice’ to a couple who had decided to part with each other after living separately for last five years, the Supreme Court has waived statutory cool-off period of six months and granted them divorce.

The order in the Jagdambika Pal case can only trace its power to Article 142 of the Constitution which authorises the Supreme Court to “pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it”. Orders passed under this article have no precedential value. Students of law and practitioners of serious constitutional law were unenthusiastic about the constitutional underpinnings of the order. Some wags in the corridor of the Supreme Court called the rough and ready measure “Punchhaiti Raj” in an apparent pun on the Chief Justice’s name. In an issue of the Supreme Court Bar Association

Voltaire

"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" - Voltaire

oh no ..we need ur capital not you!!

The founders of India's top two consumer Internet companies Sachin Bansal and Bhavish Aggarwal have called for enforcing protectionist measures against their global rivals Amazon and Uber, accusing these firms of dumping capital to buy customers to become monopolies in the country.

India is the world's last large open market where Amazon and Uber are pitted against local rivals Flipkart and Ola respectively. Both firms have committed billions of dollars to capture India, giving tough competition to the local leaders, who have mirrored the business models of these two US internet companies.

E-commerce and ride-hailing, similar to all business that uses the internet to connect consumers with suppliers, tend to be monopolistic in nature. The company that gets the most users and vendors tends to dominate the business playing on the network effect, with the rival being a distant second. Amazon and Uber dominate the US market and many other markets globally and the gap with their rivals is growing.

Both Bansal and Aggarwal cite this reason to curb the expansion of Uber and Amazon, calling the government to bring rules that only get foreign capital in India, but restrict foreign consumer internet companies from setting up shops.

In the past, India had policies for pharma, automobiles, IT and banking that encouraged local entrepreneurs to build a strong base before opening up for competition. Likewise, the country's Make in India policy for defence manufacturing looks at local development over foreign imports.

"But in the technology sector, this is not the case because it is naturally monopolistic. The cost of acquisition is zero, once you have something it happens to be accessible to everyone at the same time and that is the unique thing for which China's answer was to close down the market," Bansal said at a panel discussion moderated by T V Mohandas Pai at the Carnegie India technology summit on Wednesday. "I think what we need to do is what China did. They told the world we need your capital but we don't need your companies."

Uber, which burnt over $2 billion in China was humiliated by local rival Didi Chuxing forcing it to exit the Middle Kingdom for a minority stake in Didi. The resources, which Uber had set aside for China is being diverted to India, besides the capital that was already allocated from the $ 3.5 billion it raised from Saudi Arabia's public fund.

Likewise, Amazon has committed over $5 billion since mid-2014 to capture the Indian e-commerce market, which has been dragging down its international margins.

Bansal and Aggarwal say both these rivals are burning money to capture market share but not adding any value to the Indian ecosystem, while local firms such as theirs are generating high-value jobs in the country.

"When a ride goes to Uber for example in India, the higher-end jobs are being created in the US and not in India. The capabilities in the ecosystem are getting created in the US and not in India, while when it comes to Ola the capabilities are being created in India," said Bansal.

Increased competition from Uber and Amazon have not only hurt the Indian companies in expanding their business but also dragged down their valuations that have made it harder to raise fresh funds from global investors.

"When you see the capital story that's where the Indian ecosystem is at a disadvantage. Number one is that there's no local capital, we have to go abroad for capital and it's much easier for non-Indian companies to raise capital because they're profitable elsewhere," said Aggarwal. "You might call it capital dumping but it's a very unfair playing field for the Indian startups and something needs to be done about it. The consumer Internet industry because it largely carries a monopolistic stake, a lot of irrational capital is thrown into the land grab."

Not all buy the arguments made by Bansal and Aggarwal. Anand Rangarajan, who is the engineering director at Google's Bengaluru research centre, says local companies can give competition to multinationals such as Google if they are able to build trust with the consumers.

"This has happened in markets such as Russia and South Korea and other markets where local players are very dominant. I don't think they're doing well just because they got protection, they're doing well because they've won the consumer trust and we couldn't do as good a job," said Rangarajan. 

kaushik basu

World Bank too has changed its goal to fighting no longer for just eradication of poverty but also for shared prosperity”

There is now a consensus the world over that the free market economic model does not work, said World Bank chief economist and former Chief Economic Adviser to the government of India Kaushik Basu on Sunday.

Dr. Basu was speaking at a function organised here by the ‘Ideas for India’.

Just as complete state control fails, leaving all decisions to markets results in grave inequalities and so it doesn’t work even politically, argued Dr. Basu. “The things that were ideologically rooted on the extreme right and extreme left, those fringes have now fallen off.”

Now, “sharing of the pie” with the bottom 40 per cent of people is gaining traction even with the International Monetary Fund and economists such as Thomas Piketty, Dr. Basu said.

Reflecting the new consensus, Dr. Basu said the World Bank formally changed its goal to fighting no longer for just eradication of poverty but also for shared prosperity.

Dr. Basu’s statement assumes significance as the Economic Survey states that the Narendra Modi government plans to bring in a “pure market economy” through legislations and new processes where the role of the state would be limited to intervening in case market forces fail.

The need for policy intervention is getting recognised globally, said Dr. Basu, since a large part of the inequality in the world is being inherited at birth and getting dynastically transmitted from generation to generation. “Since there can be no distinction on the lines of hard-working babies and lazy babies, the issue of inequality at birth has come to the policy makers’ table.”

Education paradox

As a case in point, he cited the problem of India’s education paradox: “India’s small elite are able to receive world-class education but the masses get very poor quality education… Literacy levels were till 10 years ago below some sub-Saharan countries.”

Dr. Basu also said that the World Bank was planning to create an ‘Ease of Living Life’ rating of countries that would be on the lines of the ‘Ease of Doing Business’ in which India ranks poorly. The rating being planned will rank countries on the costs incurred by ordinary people in interface with the bureaucracy.

Neo liberalism seen not just in globalisation but other aspects too

So this creation of political elites aka the industrialist/ corporate bureaucrat politician linkage... aka the subservience of the state to the market is again a doing of capitalism paradim

Then as the market paradigm spreads its tantacles across the world binding each nation with its stifling and coercive pattern of development the state and its policy lever os captured to suit the interest of these corporate global elites. This is at the cost of the rest majority.
Thus this battle between globalisation and market vs state and sovereignty also takes the colors of the duel between elitism vs democratic citizenship.

The surrender of state objective to serve its people can be directly seen in the mega regional trade blocks. The tpp rcep and the tatip. Why are people the environmentalist the labour unionists the sovereign gvts so against it. Precisely becoz these market led tantacles are seeking to stifle them.

Another tangential but significant point to be noted here is that the globalisation and capitalism can be verified or their existence perceived if the nation goes through environmental and labour reforms. So far here in india the labour reforms in the industrial dispute act such as the one carried out by rajasthan and madhya pradesh gvt that no sanctions from the gvt are needed for closing business etc.  last year the economic survey highlighted the chakrvyu challenges to the firms and the need for them to do away with the government contol by allowing them to exit and shutdown when they are not profitable.  this would lead to a more productive utilisation of capital labour and entrepreneurship. 

but these are just few of the highlights that show the onslaught of global capitalism in india. Much has been said and done about the need of labour reforms as a corresponding reform to the 1991 lpg reforms. So much water has flown under the low manufacturing bridge that poor industrial performance and the absence of manufacturing sector the losses incurred due to chinese goods flooding are all attributed to stagnancy in labour reform. 

Clearly the indian government is already under great dueress to produce results in favour of indian and global corporates. But it shouldnt be forgotten that india is a nation of people 1.3 crore people and no development paradigm can be successful without taking them into consideration. Aristotle while recounting the merits of democracy stated that it is a better form of gvt to oligarchy or say philosopher king because in case of oligarchy they have a vested interest in making themselves rich while keeping the majority poorer. but in a democracy if a government continues to only the select  few the majority would shut them of the power and then a new government which would serve the majority would continue. dont get it ...the focus on irrigation the pm gareeb kalyan yojana , mahila schemes , increased progressive taxations are all manifestations of aristotelian argument.

So labour reforms are somewhat hard, unless people are themselves sufficiently financially and socially to let go some of the benefits that they accrue while being in a union. Therefore a neoliberalism is somewhat checked due to democracy.

But there are caveats such as formation of coalition government and vote bank politics. in both cases aristotle fails. but anyways. 

A new brand of leaders who are more pro people like christina lagard (IMF) kaushik Basu ( world bank) are showing the needs for empowerment of people first before empowering the markets. Kaushik basu at the world bank in order to capture the concept of inequality came out with the concept of shared prosperity which actuallty takes into account the growth rate of poorest 40 percent. 

India too

Anti-globalization movement
Worldwide political movement against multinational corporations

Thousands of people gathered for a demonstration in Warsaw, the capital of Poland, as the country prepared to enter the European Union in 2004.

The anti-globalization movement, or counter-globalisation movement,[1] is a social movement critical of economic globalization. The movement is also commonly referred to as the global justice movement,[2] alter-globalization movement, anti-globalist movement, anti-corporate globalization movement,[3] or movement against neoliberal globalization.

Participants base their criticisms on a number of related ideas.[4] What is shared is that participants oppose large, multinational corporations having unregulated political power, exercised through trade agreements and deregulated financial markets. Specifically, corporations are accused of seeking to maximize profit at the expense of work safety conditions and standards, labor hiring and compensation standards, environmental conservation principles, and the integrity of national legislative authority, independence and sovereignty. As of January 2012, some commentators have characterized changes in the global economy as "turbo-capitalism" (Edward Luttwak), "market fundamentalism" (George Soros), "casino capitalism" (Susan Strange),[5] and as "McWorld" (Benjamin Barber).

Many anti-globalization activists do not oppose globalization in general and call for forms of global integration that better provide democratic representation, advancement of human rights, fair trade and sustainable development and therefore feel the term "anti-globalization" is misleading.[6][7][8]

the curious case of purvi patel

We can go back to Locke but that would be unnecessary to the lay readers. So lets start from the year 1973, the year when India had one of the most historic, probably the most historic- however lets not reduce such complex socio cultural issues to mere superlatives and unqualified simplicity. So the year was 1973 when the S.C. in the Keshvananda Bharti Vs state of Kerala judgment in 7;6 slim majority came out with the doctrine of basic feature. However the tussle between the court and the executive was far from over and one can see the same quest for supremacy between the two bodies in the NJAC judgment and countless others. But coming back to the year 1973, and moving continents away to America, another historic judgment was being met out by the apex court of the nation. A judgment that would greatly impact the people this nation directly on their lifestyles, their morals and value and the spirit of freedom that they so cherish. The judgment being ROE vs Wade and the case involving the right of a woman to undergo abortion and take away the life of her fetus to suit her choices.

To call America an ultra conservative country, maybe one like the Ireland today, would be a travesty of the truth. The fact of the matter is that Abortion is legalised in USA whereas it is not so in the Catholicism inspired nation of Ireland. However America of the 20th century was not the same as America is today. One has to look at the progressive movement, the prohibition movement that followed it and organisation like the women christian temperance organisation that cropped up along with issues of women suffrage and bringing in a purer electoral base. Further it was this ever pervading spirit of Individualism (could be a derivative of protestantism ) and liberty also added to the anti abortion sentiments, clearly the liberty of the unborn baby is being referred to and not the carrier mother. So all in all USA was a fairly conservative society and did not permit abortion. Not till this texan woman who wanted to abort her third child took up the cudgel to fight against the repressive institution and the state law. The matter reached apex court by the time Miss Mccourvey had already delivered the baby and put him or her for adoption. But the case continued, so the Court legalised abortion, thus a major battle was won by women and the pro choice contendors.

Interestingly the court did not dwelve in matters of life and death etc rather took up the argument of Right to Privacy to further the cause of women's choice. The court articulated that not allowing the woman to undergo abortion was a direct violation of her right to privacy and therefore anti abortion laws have to be done away with. The judgment was given by 7;2 majority, with 2 dissenting voices.
Again, another interesting point that needs to be mentioned here is that for the right to privacy argument the case of Gradison vs Connecticut was referred to. Here the judges stated that anti contraceptive laws of Connecticut were violative of right to privacy and the right to privacy emanated from some liberty something from the constitution.


So the question arises that why was pallavi patel jailed for 20 years for her act of self abortion.

Miss patel for some reasons did not go to an authorised doctor and conducted self abortion by eating pills brought via some online website. Abortion happened but post this she started having bleeding and other issues for which she had to go to the doctor. Now the doctor realised that the baby was not in the womb and therefore reported it to the Indiana police. Now the police found out the body of 25 weeks old (just 1 week older than what would indian laws allow for abortion) and found the lady guilty of foeticide.

However later she was aquitted

Usa withdrawl started in 2014

Withdrawal completed in December 2016 and larger U.S. presence[4]

U.S. keeps 8,400 troops in 4 garrisons (Kabul, Kandahar, Bagram and Jalalabad) indefinitely due to Taliban resurgence attempt in Kunduz