Category: Publications

While there are a number of compelling legal arguments against the Constitution (124th) Amendment Bill, no party in the Lok Sabha has come out with a strong political counter. Some speakers did raise the issue about the timing of the Bill but its social justice credentials were left largely unquestioned. When the Bill is introduced in the Rajya Sabha, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam may be the only party which will rise to oppose the enactment of quotas for forward castes and expose the move for why it is a failure as policy and politics. 

In a nutshell, the Constitution (124th) Amendment Bill (Bill, hereinafter) is to social policy what demonetisation was to economic policy. The entire edifice of social justice built on the basis of proportional representation, inclusion and equal opportunities will be in danger of imminent collapse, if this Bill passes judicial scrutiny.

The reason that reservations are seen as an integral social policy solution is because it addresses the historical wrongs in the form of caste-based discriminatory practices. The differential treatment and structural discrimination within society, especially in the realms of education and employment, was on the basis of caste. It is this social problem that needed to be addressed; and have been done so in the past, through various Constitutional measures to provide reservations on the basis of social and educational backwardness. However, the present Bill aims to provide equal opportunity for economically weaker sections among forward castes. It is akin to using chemotherapy for the common cold. Not only is that a wrong diagnosis, it could prove fatal to the overall health itself. 

The Bill has two major components. Firstly, it says that the State shall provide “for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clause (4), in addition to the existing reservation” and secondly that the extent of reservation would be “subject to a maximum of 10% of the posts in each category”. The Bill, unfortunately, fails the common sense test on both counts. There is no history of any structural discrimination against economically weaker sections amongst the forward castes. There have always been, obvious, impediments to equal opportunity for persons who are from economically weaker sections but this is true across castes and religion. As such, the problems faced by the poor are not limited to any one caste or group identity. 

The Government has also provided no ostensible reasoning on how they arrived at the magic figure of 10%. We have seen, in the past, that Governments have appointed Expert Committees to study, assess and recommend backwardness and social disabilities amongst groups and that has been the scientific and rational basis for extending reservations. The Government of Tamil Nadu expanded the scope of reservations on the back of recommendations by the A.N. Sattnanathan Commission and Ambasankar Commission while at the national level, the Mandal Commission played a similar role. By not taking a scientific approach, the Government has revealed that the present Bill is devoid of any substantive thinking. 

Another problematic area of the Bill is the definition of what constitutes economic weakness. The Bill, in the Explanation provided under Section 2, says that “”economically weaker sections” shall be such as may be notified by the State from time to time.”  It is patently unclear whether the State Governments will be allowed to issue notifications or this power has also been wrested by the Centre. Nevertheless, any notification issued is liable to be scrutinised by the judiciary and subject of further contentious deliberations. 

In all, the Government has shown itself to be politically desperate and crying out for a way out of the governance mess they find themselves in. Perhaps, the Modi even expected a face-off on the floor of Parliament but with the majority of political parties on board, he has been denied any chance to claim victory. The Constitution (124th) Amendment Bill, therefore, has turned out to be not be not just a dud in terms of policy but also poor politics. 

Manuraj Shunmugasundaram

DMK Spokesperson and Advocate – Madras High Court. 

Link to the Article: https://theprint.in/opinion/modi-govt-reservation-bill-bad-as-note-ban-only-dmk-has-courage-to-expose-it/175219/

The mother of all scams was that you were fooled in to thinking there was a scam where none existed. 

There were 17 persons accused in the 2G case instituted by the Central Bureau of Investigation and 19 persons in the case instituted by the Directorate of Enforcement. The Special Court which held day-to-day trial of all the cases held everyone to have been acquitted of all charges, explained in the judgments running into 1552 pages and 105 pages, respectively. 

For the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), the 2G case has been another in the list of unproven allegations. When MG Ramachandran walked out of the DMK in 1972, he levelled allegations of corruption and mishandling of party funds. Yet, nothing was proved on these allegations. In 2001, Jayalalitha, soon after being sworn in as Chief Minister, ordered the midnight arrest of M Karunanidhi on the charges of allegations in the construction of flyovers. So weak was the case, it was not even filed before the court. 

In 2011, the 2G case was filed before the Special Court in Patiala House Courts and members of the DMK stood accused. In 2017, all of them have been acquitted. Along with this, the DMK party stands exonerated; exonerated of insinuations, innuendo, allegations and accusations. Can the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (ADMK) – chief architects of the scam – speak with similar moral authority? Have not Bangaru Laxman and J Jayalalithaa been convicted by courts of law on charges of corruption? 

The truth is that politics is the battle of perception. A perception of pervasive corruption was created by our political rivals. With that, there was a tendency to exaggerate, scandalise and sensationalise. When the Comptroller and Auditor General report was leaked in November 2010, then Minister A Raja came forward to step down from the Council of Ministers, in order to facilitate a fair probe. The entire case was monitored by the Supreme Court, including the chargesheet filed and the appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor. Regular updates and progress reports were periodically filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Directorate of Enforcement and Income Tax Department before the Supreme Court. There has been more media interest and coverage of this case than any other. To understand the significance of the acquittal, the judgment must be seen against the backdrop of the most stringent media, executive and judicial scrutiny. 

Political discourse needs to change. It needs to evolve. BJP, ADMK kept calling this a scam when the case was still in trial. Today, the shoe is on the other foot. We, as responsible opposition parties, need to set a higher standard than the BJP or ADMK. Politicians need to realize that they are hurling allegations and maligning reputations of people with families and lives. Take Kanimozhi: her son was 11 years old when she the case started, she had to be in Delhi for day-to-day trial over the last 7 years. Who will give back her the time she lost in the process? What about the imprisonment she, and others, had to undergo? 

When DMK President Karunanidhi was arrested on a fateful night in 2001, he was taken before the Magistrate at the early hours of the morning. A journalist from Tamil magazine Nakeeran, who was present at the residence of the Magistrate, passed him a piece of white paper and asked if there was something he wanted to tell the people of the state. Karunanidhi scribbled the following words: “Aneethi veezhum, Aram vellum.” translated as “Injustice will fall. Dharma shall prevail”. The words have rung true, time and again. 

Manuraj Shunmugasundaram

Spokesperson, DMK

Advocate, Madras High Court 

Link to the Article : https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/2g-bjp-admk-kanimozhi-a-raja-4995301/

To paraphrase Mark Twain, a sensational allegation can travel half way around the world while facts is putting on its shoes. More outrageous the claims like say, lakhs of crores in presumptive loss), the news travels faster, wider and deeper. There was a deep prejudice manufactured in to the minds of public on the basis of some back-of-the-envelope calculations done by a Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG). I don’t want to say much further about this CAG, who has smugly titled his autobiography as ‘Not Just an Accountant’. Clearly, not. In any case, I wish him a good tenure as the Honorary Advisor to the Ministry of Railways and as Chairman of the Banks Board Bureau and any other positions that may come his way as gratitude for being more than an accountant. 

However, some ink needs to be spilled about the manufacturers of the 2G “scam”. Leading the pack is the self-proclaimed brain behind the 2G case and erstwhile Janata Party leader: Subramanian Swamy. In his interview yesterday (21.12.2017), he said that he would ask the Prime Minister to constitute an “War-like Council” and purge the Finance Ministry (http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/finance-ministry-needs-a-purge-says-swamy/article9999454.ece). Swamy merged his Janata Party with the Bharatiya Janata Party in August 2013 and was subsequently nominated as a member of Rajya Sabha in 2016.

Another character who emerged out of the shadows during the early stages of the 2G case was Aseervatham Achary – a many who had spent a decade or so working in A Raja’s ministerial office. Achary quit the office of Raja around 2008 and was deputed back to his parent governmental office. Achary presented himself as a ‘star witness’ and deposed against his former boss and provided some of the most entertaining courtroom moments. Today, Achary is a part of the BJP’s “Strategic Action Committee”. (https://www.linkedin.com/in/aseervatham-achary-b44a1478/) 

There are others like Kiran Bedi who positioned themselves are anti-corruption crusaders in 2011. Only to be rewarded by BJP with tickets for Assembly election and candidate-ship for Chief Minister; and after failing to win the seat, was sent as Lieutenant Governor to Pondicherry. The common thread that connects all these people – other than the fact that they’ve all become BJP office-bearers – is that they had played crucial roles in building a perception that there was a massive “scam”. 

The real scam in all this is that the allocation of spectrum in 2007 was projected as a scam. The entire issue was prejudged based on bare hunches, incomplete information and corridor rumours. It was declared a scam on national media, in Parliament and people were led to believe that there was one. To quote the judgment of Special Judge OP Saini, in paragraph 1814: “Thus, some people created a scam by artfully arranging a few selected facts and exaggerating things beyond recognition to astronomical levels”.

Emboldened, the politicians siting in the opposition benches took the liberty of plunging to new depths in political discourse. The Minister was referred to as “Spectrum Raja” and the entire issue was called the “2G scam”. Was the issue not prejudged by various institutions of this country, including the media? How could Raja get a free and fair trial after being branded as “Spectrum Raja” in television tickers? Would all those who used the term “2G scam” today reflect on the 1552 page judgment in the CBI case and say whether they have not prejudged the issue? 

It is a sad state of affairs that the spokespersons of BJP, including eminent lawyers, have reacted to the verdict by saying it is not a “certificate” and quoted a Supreme Court order from 2012 on the issue of allocation of licenses (https://twitter.com/BJP4India/status/943756049454190592). There is simply no legal basis to these arguments. In a writ petition under Article 32 such as the case which was decided by the Supreme Court in 2012, corruption or criminality cannot be determined. In fact, a writ petition is barred from adjudicating on ‘disputed facts’. It is another aspect that A Raja was never given an opportunity to file a counter affidavit or become a party to the proceedings in 2012 when his decisions were the subject matter of the writ. 

May I also remind the BJP that everyday, hundreds of government tenders and policy decisions are called into question before the courts of law and subsequently, held to the capricious, arbitrary and ultra vires? Does this mean all such cases, including those that have been decided in the last three years lead to the inference of widespread corruption or scams? Does the BJP now say, by the same logic, that if a constitutional court is to hold demonetization policy to be procedurally irregular, having caused a loss of 2% to the Indian Gross Domestic Product and benefitted some private digital payment companies, then Narendra Modi would be declared corrupt? 

Manuraj Shunmugasundaram

Spokesperson, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam

Advocate, Madras High Court

Link to the Article: https://theprint.in/opinion/manufactured-deep-prejudice-public-mind-2g-scam-rewarded-bjp/24236/

C.N.Annadurai (Anna), regarded by Jawaharlal Nehru as one of the country’s finest Parliamentarians, was a stalwart of the Dravidian Movement. He was known to his supporters as“Arignar Anna”for his outstanding intellect and razor- sharp wit. During his political career, which saw him rise to become the first non-Congress Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, his oratory and erudition was unparalleled. Anna’s oratorical abilities greatly helped to explain his party’s policies and navigate through tough political opposition. Even today, Anna’s speeches on the concepts of majoritarianism and federalism are elegant and enlightening. 

Soon after Independence, the Central Government had started phasing out English and instituting Hindi has the official language. Protesting against this, the leaders of the DMK including Anna held numerous meetings and demonstrations against the Centre. During one such meeting, Anna was told of the argument that Hindi should be made the official language due to it’s “numerical superiority”, as it was spoken by the majority of Indians. To this, Anna countered: “If we had to accept the principle of numerical superiority while selecting our national bird, the choice would have fallen not on the peacock but on the common crow. Why should we then claim the tiger as our national animal instead of the rat which is so much more numerous?”

Between 1962 and 1967, Anna served as Member of the Rajya Sabha. During a discussion on changing the name of Madras State to Tamil Nadu, a fellow Parliamentarian asked “what one would gain by changing the name from Madras State to Tamil Nadu”. Quick to his feet, Anna responded, reflecting the emotional affliction of millions of Tamils: “What do I gain? What have you gained by renaming Parliament as Lok Sabha? What have you gained by renaming Council of States as Rajya Sabha? What have you gained by renaming President as Rastrapathi? Therefore I say, what do you lose? This is important because if you were to lose something precious, we would not press for it. If you do not lose something fundamental, we will press for it. The other point was raised, what do you gain? We gain satisfaction sentimentally; we gain satisfaction that an ancient name is inculcated in the hearts of millions and scores of millions of people. Is that not enough compensation for the small trouble of changing the name?”

In 1967, DMK was voted into power and Anna was elected as Chief Minister. Anna’s government introduced a two language policy for students to study Tamil and English. The Centre had endorsed and urged States to follow the three language formula – Hindi, regional language and English. Notwithstanding pressures from the Centre, Anna articulated the two-language policy thus: “The Government of Tamil Nadu has stated in unmistakable terms that Tamil and English can serve all our purposes, the former as the Official Language of this State and the latter as the link language. If it is accepted that English can serve admirably as a link between our State and the outside world, why plead for Hindi to be the link language here? What serves to link us with the outside world is certainly capable of rendering the same service inside India as well. To plead for two link languages is like boring a smaller hole in a wall for the kitten while there is a bigger one for the cat. What suits the cat will suit the kitten as well.”

Today, almost fifty years later, Anna’s speeches are relevant for their clarity of vision and depth of thought. By merging tough ideological concepts with uncomplicated analogies, Anna laid the foundation for a vibrant and informed political discourse in Tamil Nadu. 

Manuraj Shunmugasundaram

(Author is a policy advisor to elected representatives)

Link to the Article: https://www.thenewsminute.com/kerala/explained-the-row-behind-kerala-appointing-officer-for-external-cooperation