BLOGGER'S VIEWReproduced hereunder is the speech rendered by Ms. Pratibha Patil, the President of India, on Nov. 24, 2007, AT THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF JURISTS ON THE RULE OF LAW, held in New Delhi.
The contents of the speech are rather dull. Though it may not be she herself, who might have prepared the speech, we have to presume that she might have perused it before reading it on the dais.
I am not referring to the lacklustre style. I am referring to the essential things which she has omitted.
1. The President not referring to the perils faced by Judges in Pakistan, is understandable in view of our delicate relations with our neighbor. It is also a custom not to raise inconvenient issues.
2. The President used
cliches like "Justice delayed is justice denied" etc.
3. The President, in my humble view, ought to have referred to the following:
a) Language used in framing laws becoming complex and cumbersome and clumsy. Sentences (of language) are becoming circumlocuting (round-about).
b) Legislatures in some countries not consulting judiciary before framing laws, about the basic legality of the provisions they are going to make. This would obviate the need for Courts to strike down grossly illegal provisions and creating unnecessary
CASE LAW., apart from the bitterness and unpleasantness it results.
c) Executives in some countries not implementing even reasonable decrees/orders/writs of even the highest courts in the respective countries.
d) Armies, Navies, Airforce and other military establishments thinking that they are beyond the purview of rule of law.
Not that the President should be too active instead of being ceremonial. At the sametime, the President (and her speechwriters) have to appreciate that international jurists assembled there for a session to hear what the President of the Largest Democracy in the world will say about the Rule of Law.
PRESIDENT'S SPEECH"... I have great pleasure in participating at the International Conference of Jurists on the Rule of Law and am delighted to speak before this august gathering of legal luminaries and jurists. I would also like to congratulate the winners of the National Law Day Awards and the International Jurists' Awards.
Differing theories and the current ongoing debates do not permit a clear jurist's definition of what the "Rule of Law" means internationally. However, the concept in simple terms translates itself to mean not only the need to abide by the rulebook but also the need to guarantee that while the rule is being interpreted, the law should not be seen as unjust, inequitable, discriminatory and arbitrary. These principles have guided many democratic nations in their efforts to establish responsible and responsive governing systems.
Infact, a democratic form of government must have its foundations on a rule of law that advocates the absence of arbitrary power, equality before law and protection of individual liberties. The Constitution of India provides a powerful framework for the protection and enforcement of basic rights of the individual and rejects the arbitrary use of power; its provisions reflect a commitment to promote the rule of law. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution specifically provides for equality before law and the equal protection of the laws. Parliament and the State Legislatures are democratically elected on the basis of adult suffrage. There is independence of judiciary and the power of judicial review. All these provisions together constitute a firm commitment to the rule of law.
We recently celebrated the 60th year of our Independence. It marked a long journey in realizing our constitutional goals and democratic aspirations. We can be sufficiently proud of our unwavering commitment to function on the basis of the rule of law. We, as Indians, are also proud of our achievements in education, science and technology, agriculture, industry and commerce. However, there are still a large number of people living below the poverty line. What does social and economic justice mean to them? As Mahatma Gandhi wished, could we contribute to wiping a tear from every eye or an eye at a time? While, I am fully aware, of the service rendered by the higher judiciary in India in upholding the rule of law, I believe lawyers and jurists can contribute much more to helping the needy who knock on the doors of justice. Clearly, in a country with the size and magnitude of India, there remain many challenges in providing social justice as well as justice to the marginalized sections of our society. High cost of judicial remedy is a cause of concern that needs rectification. Alternative dispute settlement systems need to be encouraged.
We need to reinforce our efforts for the better implementation of the rule of law, particularly for the disadvantaged sections of society. People should be made aware of their substantive legal rights as well as legal courts that can be approached for the enforcement of their rights. Awareness campaigns will be important in educating people. Again, while awareness is the first step, it alone is not enough. People must believe that the enforcement of their rights is possible and that they will get remedies. Public perception of legal institutions is crucial in this regard. Courts should make procedures as simple as possible for persons to gain access to it. Even though free legal aid is guaranteed for the weaker sections of society, it should be remembered that the quality of legal aid plays a very important role. Creative solutions to this problem will have to be thought of. The basic postulate of the rule of law that "justice should not only be done but it must also be seen to be done", is a constant reminder of the high standards that must be maintained in delivering justice. In this context, sometimes justice delayed can become justice denied and hence the need to ensure speedier disposal of cases.
While it is seen that the concept of the rule of law at the domestic or national level excludes arbitrariness and calls for administrative accountability, at the international level it assumes different connotations. The United Nations is currently discussing the "Rule of Law at the National and International Levels". An understanding of the rule of law among States cannot simply mean "effectiveness of laws" as seen at the domestic levels. It would require adherence and respect for international law as well as undertaking obligations established by the Charter of the United Nations and other international instruments in good faith.
Some of the basic principles governing international relations that are enshrined in the UN Charter - such as sovereignty, equality of States, prohibition of the use of force and protection of basic human rights, have to be adhered to by all nations. In present times, challenges to the "Rule of Law" also include problems of international terrorism, a global economic order that does not have adequate representation in international financial institutions for developing countries, weapons of mass destruction, transnational crimes - drugs, trafficking of individuals, money laundering etc. to name a few. In international conflict situations, in many parts of the world, children and women who constitute the weaker section of society are subject to innumerable hardships. Many parts of Asia and Africa are still experiencing drought, famine, disease and malnutrition. In today's world, we need to focus on the real purpose of the rule of law and structures of governance which is to uphold human dignity, encourage broad-based growth and develop accountable systems.
I am sure this International Conference of Jurists will provide an excellent opportunity to debate and discuss better means and methods of upholding the rule of law and providing justice to the common man.
I wish you good luck and success in your deliberations and declare this Conference open. ..."
TAIL PIECEBJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) raised a hue and cry about the allegations pending against Ms. Pratibha Patil, in Maharashtra before her election as the President and the Government's inaction in not registering Criminal Cases against her.
Now, the party is mum, why? Are the allegations false? Do the questions of
RULE OF LAW arise only during elections?
