Allahabad HC decision on Education.

Recently Allahabad High Court has given a ruling that  is historic but may not stand scrutiny of legality on many counts. It is likely to be challenged in SC  and struck down there.

Ruling is all wards ( son and daughters ) of Government Servants, Judges and Elected Members must study only in government schools. Those who do not obey this order will have to deposit money with the govt. equivalent to fees paid in private school. Order is to be implemented by next session. 

The ruling came while disposing a petition, which drew attention to poor conditions of govt schools in terms of infrastructure and lack  of teachers in UP  and  asked  courts direction to improve the same.

Court observed that previous directions have  failed to improve the situation  and felt that unless the wards of the authorities who are responsible for improvement  go to these schools, situation will not improve.

I agree with diagnosis but beg to differ with solution provided. Under the present provision of liberty ( fundamental right) available to every citizen under constitution, how, a state can direct a individual to send his wards to send  to a particular school/ institute, just because he is govt servant or elected representative and so on. It is  also discrimination and violates equality  before law. 

Another angel is, if this logic is applied, these people must compulsorily avail medical facility in govt Hospitals ( Govt. Hospitals are  also in poor condition and needs improvement). Same with public transport and many other services provided by state. This way we need to force these people  to use wheat and rice of PDS only. Is it practical ?

Unfortunately, India in terms of services, has virtually divided in 2 -3 parts. Affluent and people with influence have developed all these services ( world class/ affordable) for themselves outside the government network. Slowly-slowly over the years, specially after liberalization of 1991, government services in any area be it in education, health, transport or any other area came to be identified as work and duty of welfare state directed towards poor. They were/ are provided below cost also., and so to reduce burden people who could afford were kept out.

This has generated vicious circle. Govt services for poor and so of poor quality.      

Seed of such problem was sown quite early after independence, when in every sector ( in absence of private sector) and in neglect of need of poor govt. gave priority  to Higher education (IIT etc), Best Health services (AIMS) and so on overlooking primary education, primary health center and so on.

Result is every one to see, we are a nation having succeeded in sending Mangalyan in first attempt, but we are also a nation with highest number of hungry people  in world and there rate of decrease is far less than  in other nation.

Basically, we need to change (feudal)  mind set of division of Ruler and Ruled. And this is not a Problem of UP, nor restricted to primary education only. Once this is changed and only through this situation can improve and not by HC directive.

Capital Punishment: A Discussion.

Capital Punishment: A Discussion.

Yakub Menon's death penalty and its execution has raised more question on our justice system than positive indication of our resolve to fight terrorism.

The different point of heated debate are.

1. Capital punishment is a killing by state and is to be condemned.
2. Capital punishment is no deterrent for criminals.
3. Justice is different -different for different  people based on
i. Political Backing.
ii. Money Power.
iii. Religion of Accused.
iv. Caste of Accused.
4. Decision are affected by constituents of bench of court.

Many more points of debate / discussion are possible but basically they will be offshoot of above points.

Let us take one by one.
1.It is argued that capital punishment should not be given because if you are not able to give life to any one you do not have right to take it. Even state do not have this right. This is barbaric and civil society has no place for such thing.Further,it is irreversible and it is found that if appeal is made, in 95 % of cases High Court/ Supreme have reversed the trial court judgement. Counter is - what should be highest punishment ?. Many countries ( of Europe) who had abolished this are now considering reintroducing it in the wake of rising terrorism. The human right activist who advocate right of accused forget rights of victim. And so on.

2. Second -Capital punishment is no deterrent. Yes I agree, it is specially true when person has been completely brainwashed in the name of religion or patriotism. Perpetrator of such crime know in advance, what are the consequence of their action.
But if this argument is logically extended, no punishment is deterrent for any criminal. Punishment has not stopped any crime. Even pickpocket-er knows in advance what are consequences, but does it. What is more, many are busy in crime (specially white crime) as profession and does not feel any guilt. Under the circumstances should state abandon whole justice/ punishment system ?.

We are confused with the role of punishment. In most cases it is solace to victim of justice than deterrent to criminal. And that is acceptable role of punishment.

So far arguments are academic and do not rouse passion or divide society. But point number 3 & 4 are most divisive and needs serious discussion if we want to survive as united society and wish  to maintain credibility of our justice system including Supreme Court. As per Constitution ruling of SC are law of land and their is no appeal against it. Even criticizing  (any ) court rulings can invite contempt of court proceeding.

But admitting that this is man made arrangement and considering the number of ruling of HC overturned by SC or reprimanded for poor reasoning. Is it not possible to argue that in a hypothetical situation where there is court above SC, many of its ruling will be overturned or criticized by upper court as discriminatory ?.
Take the ruling that " delay in considering mercy petition is ground for cancelling death penalty". Can higher court not question " If normal is not defined how delay is there". Poor reasoning or an intellectual argument to rationalize or justify the decision taken?. Take another example ( out of context), of Sahara Group chairman's detention. In my view had this step been taken by lower court,SC would have over ruled it on the ground of fundamental right of liberty. It seems, it has more to do with SC v/s Sahara than SEBI/ Investor v/s Sahara. In last 70 years we have not been able to to decide when justice process ends ?. With SC ruling or Mercy petition with President? If President has rejected can Governor take up and rule on mercy petition differently ?. Question are many and that led to hearing of  Yakub case  at midnight.

It is being termed as independence of justice system. But look from other perception, it is just abuse of system by wealthy and mighty. Justice is perceived to be purchased than given. That is why 80-90 % of convicts are poor and from weaker section of society.

Agreed all system are operated by human being and subjectivity can not be ruled out. Even contemporary LAW of land is product of balance of power between different stake holders. As balance of power changes LAW changes.Take example of different  law on gay rights and right to death in different countries.Why a person should suffer because he is born  at wrong time and in wrong country?

So it is important that all players of system develop  empathy and do not take advantage of their strong position in terms of Money, Political clout and so on.
Else it is bad sign for peace and unity of society, country and world at large.