Indian democracy has succeeded for a range
of reasons — an enlightened political leadership which wrote a remarkably progressive
Constitution; political parties which have played the democratic
game within rules; an aware electorate which has kept the parties on
their toes; a vibrant civil society which has championed rights and
justice; a free press which has kept citizens informed and kept power under
check; and, institutions which have fulfilled constitutional
obligations. Among these institutions, India’s independent judiciary
occupies a place of pride. For the most part, it has defended individual
liberty and protected fundamental rights; it has expanded the
idea of justice and pushed the State to support the vulnerable; it
has resolved disputes between the State and citizens, among citizens,120
between the Centre and states, and between states; it has stood as a
pillar in defence of the basic structure140 of the Constitution; it has served as a check on executive
excesses; and it has given hope to all stakeholders,160 from the powerful to the weak, that
there will be justice. That is why a robust and independent
judiciary is so critical to India’s constitutional functioning. However, in
recent years, there appears to be a trend which suggests a much closer
alignment between the judiciary and the executive than is healthy for a
system based on checks and balances. The judiciary is far too important
for anyone to assume it is perfect. On the basis of the principle
that anything240 can be improved, this trend and its specific manifestations need
further discussion. The first is the incentive structure of the judges. This is
crucial to safeguarding the independence of the institution and maintaining its
credibility. Though the executive has been280 able to exercise influence, both directly
and indirectly, over the collegium process, the judiciary has
fiercely guarded its right over appointments. But there is another way in which
judges may not be entirely free of external incentives while
exercising their320 duty. The prospect of being appointed to Government
positions after retirement could be a way in which the executive exercises
control over an otherwise independent judiciary, in countries with judicial
term limits. This trend appears to have only continued post-2014. 360
When a former Chief Justice of India ends up becoming a Member of Rajya
Sabha or a Governor nominated by the President on the advice of the Council
of Ministers, doubts grow in the minds of citizens. Unless this
incentive structure for judges is changed either through a prolonged cooling-off
period or a very restricted list of appointments, the420
perception that it is not just the legal facts of the case that
determine a final judgment will prevail. The second issue is what legal
scholars have termed as “constitutional evasion”. It is true that the
Supreme Court is overburdened. But there appears to be a pattern where the
timing of when a matter is taken up, or when an order480 is
delivered or judgment is pronounced, has been convenient for the executive.
To be sure, the judiciary itself operates in a larger national and
political eco-system and to expect judges to operate in a vacuum may be unrealistic.
But its ultimate loyalty has to be to the Constitution, without being
swayed in any way by either public opinion or political thought. There
have been a range of critical cases such as the constitutionality
of the changes in Jammu and560 Kashmir, the legality of the electoral bonds, the Citizenship
(Amendment) Act, and most importantly, habeas corpus petitions
which are quite central to Indian democracy. But these have either not been
taken up, or taken up after prolonged gaps, or not concluded.600 At
the same time, issues that appear aligned with the political preferences of
the executive have reached their logical conclusion. On Saturday, The Indian Express reported
that out of 10 cases which were to do with freedom of speech, the640
court upheld the right or gave relief in cases where the State and the
petitioner argued on the same side and in six cases where the State
objected, there was no relief to the petitioner. Even in Ayodhya Ram Temple
Case, the Supreme Court should have delivered the long-pending verdict much
earlier than it finally did; but the timing700 of the final verdict worked well for the political
executive. None of this may be deliberate, but it creates apprehensions
which720
the judiciary can well do without. The third issue is that in its approach
to contempt, the Supreme Court appears to have adopted a somewhat rigid view.
As debates elsewhere in constitutional democracies have evolved, the charge of scandalizing
the court has come to lose its validity. Yes, when there is an attempt to
obstruct justice, when there is outright defiance of a court order by any
party, when there is an effort to influence the legal process through
extra-legal800 means like bribing stakeholders, the Supreme Court must
step in. But when there is criticism of the court, or of judges, then courts
must be open because it is this healthy criticism of institutions that
help them improve in a840 democracy. Certain trends show that parts of the judiciary
may not be working as independently as mandated. Placing oneself above
criticism will not help the institution and its legacy. India’s judiciary
is a key pillar which has to be fiercely independent and be seen as such. This
does not mean that it needs to be consistently adversarial to the
executive, nor does it mean that it should be far too friendly
with the executive. A relationship of respect but distance between the
judiciary and the executive and a relationship of openness between the
judiciary and the citizens is the most effective way for democracy to thrive
and for the institution to regain its credibility.
The new National Education Policy,
2020 has960 been received with broad praise. The goal of universalization
of early childhood care and education and the focus on achieving980
universal foundational literacy and numeracy is especially laudable. The
challenge now lies in translating policy into action on the ground at scale.
Most policy suggestions are not new as several State Governments have
been trying hard to implement such reforms. However, the lack of consistent
political will and the slow pace of adopting emerging technologies have stymied
these efforts. We know how to educate children, as is evident in elite schools.
But our inability to do so for all children is due to the failure in
understanding the role of politics and technology. How are parents from
less-privileged backgrounds expected1080 to understand the value of the current
reforms such as curriculum overhaul, teacher-training or activity-based
learning in schools? These are all hidden behind school walls, parents are not
involved, and the visible impact of better education manifests later in life. 1120 As
a result, the public-school system has lost the perception battle to the
private system. In private-school system, parents are the most critical
constituency. The private-school system takes huge pains to dazzle parents
through fancy brochures or computer labs. Public educators tend to be poor
publicists. Unfortunately, National Education Policy ignores the
political-economy aspects of education and the critical need to involve the
parent as a teacher and voter. Parents are only mentioned 25 times, as compared
to 221 mentions1200 for teachers. It is because of the opaqueness of progress
and lack of value realization by the constituents that the politicians across
the spectrum have not paid attention to education, as compared to other
sectors such as infrastructure and skills training. Education reform
attempts come and go, based on the whims and fancies of officials and
their unpredictable tenures. Even1260 beyond political incentives, it is vital that parents
are involved directly in the learning process of their children.
Such1280 home effects have been shown to be key drivers of learning
outcomes. Parent and community engagement is not just a political
carrot, but also essential for the child’s progress. Models designed to include
teachers as key facilitators for parent interactions also increase community
respect for teachers, which is another key objective of the National Education Policy.
Across the board, teachers are motivated by how parents value them more,
realize the positive things happening in school, and express their admiration
for their efforts. Recently, we see that, when parents notice education
improvements, it translates into political popularity. Delhi, Punjab,
Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh are all early examples. In this context,
governments and politicians will only do the hard slog to translate National1400 Education
Policy into reality if their efforts are easily visible and impressive to
parents, a key voting bloc. A natural question is: How can we bring
parents on board and achieve universal foundational literacy and numeracy
throughout India? How1440 can government achieve this scale with a high return on investment?
The answer is the digital revolution. India is expected to have 820 million
smartphone users by 2022 and, for the first time, India has more rural
Internet users than urban. This is the time to use these tail winds and
adopt innovative low-tech to enable school-home connections and engage parents
where they are. Specifically, school systems need to leverage technology and
mass media communication to show parents daily and directly that they are
investing in their children’s success, and that the child is actually
learning. Technology can play a key role in bringing about this behavioural
change by implementing the Aspiration, Information and Measurement framework.
We can use social media platforms such as Facebook and Youtube to
bring about awareness, we can leverage messaging platforms such as WhatsApp
and Telegram to disseminate educational content to learning communities, and
we can use artificial intelligence to measure these learning outcomes at1600
scale.
