HDK may undergo heart surgery again

In the wake of Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) UN High Commissioner, Michele Bachelet, has filed an intervention in the Supreme Court petition challenging the constitutionality of the Citizenship Amendment Act, as she is critical of CAA. Responding to her, India’s Foreign Minister S. Jai Shanker strongly rebutted her criticism, saying that the body (UNHCR) has been wrong and is blind to the problem of cross border terrorism. The issue on hand is the possibility of scores of people, mainly Muslims, being declared as stateless. The problem at hand is the massive exercise of going through the responses/documents from over 120 crore of Indian population and screening documents, which as seen in Assam, yield result which are far from truthful or necessary.

The issue of CAA has been extensively debated and despite heavy critique of the same by large number of groups and despite the biggest mass opposition ever to any move in Independent India, the Government is determined on going ahead with an exercise which is reminiscent of the dreaded regimes which are sectarian and heartless to its citizens, which have indulged in extinction of large mass of people on grounds of citizenship, race etc. The Foreign minister’s assertion is that it is a matter internal to India, where India’s sovereignty is all that matters! As far as sovereignty is concerned we should be clear that in current times any sovereign power has to consider the need to uphold the citizenship as per the principle of non-discrimination which is stipulated in Art.26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political (ICCPR) rights.

Can such policies, which affect large number of people and are likely to affect their citizenship be purely regarded as ‘internal’? With the World turning into a global village, some global norms have been formulated during last few decades. The norms relate to Human rights and migrations have been codified. India is also signatory to many such covenants in including ICCPR, which deals with the norms for dealing with refugees from other countries. One is not talking of Chicago speech of Swami Vivekanand, which said that India’s greatness has been in giving shelter to people from different parts of the World; one is also not talking of the Tattariaya Upanishad’s ‘Atithi Devovhav’ or ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbkam’ from Mahaupanishad today.

What are being talked about are the values and opinions of organizations which want to ensure to preserve of Human rights of all people Worldwide. In this matter India is calling United Nations body as ‘foreign party’; having no locus standi in the case as it pertains to India’s sovereignty. The truth is that since various countries are signatories to UN covenants, UN bodies have been monitoring the moves of different states and intervening at legal level as Amicus (Friend of the Court) to the courts in different countries and different global bodies. Just to mention some of these, UN and High Commissioner for Human Rights has often submitted amicus briefs in different judicial platforms. Some examples are their intervention in US Supreme Court, European Court of Human Rights, International Criminal Court, and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. These are meant to help the Courts in areas where UN bodies have expertise.

 Expertise on this has been jointly formulated by various nations. These interventions also remind the nations as to what global norms have been evolved and what are the obligations of individual states to the values which have evolved over a period of time. Arvind Narrain draws our attention to the fact that, “commission has intervened in the European Court of Human Rights in cases involving Spain and Italy to underscore the principle of non-refoulement, which bars compulsory expulsion of illegal migrants… Similarly, the UN has intervened in the International Criminal Court in a case against the Central African Republic to explicate on the international jurisprudence on rape as a war crime.”

From time to time organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have been monitoring the status of Human rights of different countries. This puts those countries in uncomfortable situation and is not welcome by those establishments. How should this contradiction between ‘internal matter’, ‘sovereignty’ and the norms for Human rights be resolved? This is a tough question at the time when the freedom indices and democratic ethos are sliding downwards all over the world. In India too has slid down on the scale of these norms.

In India we can look at the intervention of UN body from the angle of equality and non discrimination. Democratic spirit should encourage us to have a rethink on the matters which have been decided by the state. In the face of the greatest mass movement of Shaheen bagh, the state does need to look inwards and give a thought to international morality, the spirit of global family to state the least.

The popular perception is that when Christians were being persecuted in Kandhmal the global Christian community’s voice was not strong enough. Currently in the face of Delhi carnage many a Muslim majority countries have spoken. While Mr. Modi claims that his good relations with Muslim countries are a matter of heartburn to the parties like Congress, he needs to relook at his self gloating. Currently Iran, Malaysia, Indonesia and many Muslim majority countries have spoken against what Modi regime is unleashing in India. Bangladesh, our neighbor, has also seen various protests against the plight of Muslims in India. More than the ‘internal matter’ etc. what needs to be thought out is the moral aspect of the whole issue. We pride ourselves in treading the path of morality. What does that say in present context when while large section of local media is servile to the state, section of global media has strongly brought forward what is happening to minorities in India.   

The hope is that Indian Government wakes up to its International obligations, to the worsening of India’s image in the World due to CAA and the horrific violence witnessed in Delhi.

Bengaluru, Jan 12: Chief Justice of India, Sharad Arvind Bobde on Saturday hinted at the possibility of Artificial Intelligence being developed for the court system while making it clear that it will never replace human discretion.

Speaking at an event here, Bobde said, "We have a possibility of developing Artificial Intelligence for the court system. Only for the purpose of ensuring that the undue delay in justice is prevented."

"I must make it clear at the outset as there are times when even judges have asked this. AI is not going to replace human judges or human discretion", he added.

Sharing more details of his vision, he stated, "It is only the repetitive, mathematical and mechanical parts of the judgments for which help can be taken from the system...we are exploring the possibility of implementing it."

Bobde stressed on the requirement of developing AI for judiciary while outlining the number of pending cases in different courts.

"Some people are in jail for 10-15 years and we are not in position to deal with their appeals. The high court's and Supreme Court take so long and ultimately the courts feel that it is just to release them on bail", he said.

Bobde also endorsed employing every talent and skill to ensure delivery of justice in a reasonable time.

"We must employ every talent, every skill we possess to ensure that justice is received within reasonable time. Delay in justice can't be a reason for anybody to take law into their hands. But it's very important for us as courts to ensure there's no undue delay in justice", he said.

CJI Bobde also highlighted the need for pre-litigation mediation and said, "Pre-litigation mediation is the need of the hour especially in the backdrop of a significant pendency that the courts are tackling with. There are innumerable areas where pre-litigation mediation could solve the problem."

He also stressed that the position of a judge is very unique under the constitution and they have to deal with a variety of problems.

"The foundation of civilisation rests on the law. Judicial officers have to deal with a variety of problems...Judges without adequate knowledge, skills and experience may cause distortion, delay and miscarriage of justice", he said.

Earlier in the day, Chief Justice of India Bobde inaugurated the phase-1 of the new building of the Karnataka Judicial Academy on Crescent Road in Bengaluru.

The new building has three floors, besides, the ground floor and two basement floors.

Bengaluru, Jan 22: The suspected man in planting of a live bomb at the Mangaluru International Airport surrendered before the DG and IG of Karnataka Police, Neelamani Raju, here on Wednesday, police sources said.

The accused was identified as Aditya Rao, a resident of Udupi.

The accused was taken for questioning by the Halasurugate Police, where he was being interrogated intensively, the sources further said.

According to them, he confessed that he planted an explosive device at Mangaluru Airport on Monday said that it was an act of revenge for denying him an employment by the Kempegowda International Airport Limited (KIAL).

He was arrested by the Bengaluru police in the past for making a hoax call to the police stating that a bomb had been planted at the Bengaluru Airport.

Karnataka Home minister Basavaraj Bommai told the media that 'the Bengaluru police have taken the custody of Aditya Rao, who is being subjected for a thorough interrogation'.

The Mangaluru police was also likely to join the Bengaluru police into the investigation, the sources added.

Also Read: Udupi’s Aditya Rao arrested for issuing bomb threats to Airport, railway station