Towards an Asian century of prosperity - The Hindu

• EASING TENSION:Progress has been made in the negotiations on the
  boundary question, and the two sides have worked together to maintain
  peace and tranquillity in the border area.

 

 The combination of the world’s factory and the world’s back office
will producethe most competitive production base, writes Xi Jinping ,
President of China

My first visit to this ancient and magic land was 17
years ago, a time when the Indian economy was undergoing reform and
beginning to show new vitality in growth. The market was booming in
Mumbai, the economic centre. Bangalore was becoming increasingly famous
as India’s Silicon Valley. And Bollywood movies and yoga were popular
throughout the world. Its people were full of expectations and the
ancient civilisation was rejuvenated.

Now 17 years
later, I am about to once again visit India, an enchanting and beautiful
land that has captured world attention. India is an emerging economy
and a big developing country. It is Asia’s third largest economy and the
world’s second largest exporter of software and agriculture products. A
member of the United Nations, the G20, the BRICS and other
organisations, India is playing an increasingly important role in the
regional and international arena. The “Story of India” has spread far
and wide. With the new government coming into office, a new wave of
reform and development has been sweeping across India, greatly boosting
the confidence of the Indian people and attracting keen international
interest in its opportunities.

Progress in relations

Relations
between China and India have made significant progress in the new
century. The strategic and cooperative partnership for peace and
prosperity has been established. China has become India’s largest
trading partner, with their bilateral trade volume increasing from less
than US$3 billion early this century to nearly US$70 billion. Mutual
visits reached 8,20,000 last year. We have had close coordination and
cooperation on climate change, food security, energy security and other
global issues and upheld the common interests of our two countries as
well as the developing world as a whole. Progress has been made in the
negotiations on the boundary question, and the two sides have worked
together to maintain peace and tranquillity in the border area.
China-India relations have become one of the most dynamic and promising
bilateral relations in the 21st century.

Our
bilateral relations have reached where they are today as a result of the
following efforts: we have deepened mutual trust by strengthening
strategic dialogue and enhancing political confidence; we have brought
more benefits to each other by expanding the areas of cooperation and
making the pie of common interests bigger; we have forged closer
friendship by encouraging more people-to-people exchanges and cementing
popular support for our bilateral relations; and we have treated each
other with sincerity by respecting and accommodating each other’s
concerns and properly managing problems and differences.

Crucial stage of reform

Both
China and India are now in a crucial stage of reform and development.
The Chinese people are committed to realising the Chinese dream of great
national renewal. We are deepening reform in all sectors. The goal has
been set to improve and develop the socialist system with Chinese
characteristics and advance the modernisation of national governance
system and capability. A total of over 330 major reform measures
covering 15 areas have been announced and their implementation is well
underway.

Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s
leadership, the new Indian government has identified ten priority areas
including providing a clean and efficient administration and improving
infrastructure. It is committed to building a united, strong and modern
India — Shreshtha Bharat. The Indian people are endeavouring to achieve
their development targets for the new era. China and India are both
faced with historic opportunities, and our respective dreams of national
renewal are very much aligned with each other. We need to connect our
development strategies more closely and jointly pursue our common dream
of national strength and prosperity.

As emerging
markets, each with its own strengths, we need to become closer
development partners who draw upon each other’s strengths and work
together for common development. With rich experience in infrastructure
building and manufacturing, China is ready to contribute to India’s
development in these areas. India is advanced in IT and pharmaceutical
industries, and Indian companies are welcome to seek business
opportunities in the Chinese market. The combination of the “world’s
factory” and the “world’s back office” will produce the most competitive
production base and the most attractive consumer market.

As
the two engines of the Asian economy, we need to become cooperation
partners spearheading growth. I believe that the combination of China’s
energy plus India’s wisdom will release massive potential. We need to
jointly develop the BCIM Economic Corridor, discuss the initiatives of
the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road, and
lead the sustainable growth of the Asian economy.

As
two important forces in a world that moves towards multipolarity, we
need to become global partners having strategic coordination. According
to Prime Minister Modi, China and India are “two bodies, one spirit.” I
appreciate this comment. Despite their distinctive features, the
“Chinese Dragon” and the “Indian Elephant” both cherish peace, equity
and justice. We need to work together to carry forward the Five
Principles of Peaceful Coexistence (the Panchsheel), make the
international order more fair and reasonable, and improve the mechanism
and rules of international governance, so as to make them better respond
to the trend of the times and meet the common needs of the
international community.

As Deng Xiaoping puts it, no
genuine Asian century would come without the development of China,
India and other developing countries. We are ready to shoulder this
mission of our times and work actively to enhance friendship between
China and India. I look forward to an in-depth exchange of views with
Indian leaders on our bilateral relations during the visit, and to
injecting new vitality to our strategic and cooperative partnership for
peace and prosperity.

I am confident that as long as
China and India work together, the Asian century of prosperity and
renewal will surely arrive at an early date.

(Xi Jinping, the President of the People’s Republic of China, is on a three-day visit to India starting today.)

I look forward to injecting new vitality to our strategic and cooperative partnership for peace and prosperity

Federalism in judicial appointments - The Hindu

 

A clean judiciary is a constitutional imperative for any working democracy

States should have a say in any major constitutional amendment concerning the judiciary

EQUAL ROLE:It is erroneous to conceive the issue of judicial appointment
as a tussle between the executive and the judiciary for a final say in
the process of selection to the higher judiciary. Picture shows the
Madras High Court.— PHOTO: V. GANESAN

The Supreme Court has dismissed a few writ petitions
challenging the constitutional validity of the Constitution (99th
Amendment) Bill and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill,
2014 (NJAC Bill). The judgment is correct, but not for the reason that
the Bills are faultless. The Bills are yet to attain the status of law
as defined under Article 13 of the Constitution. A premature opposition
to the legislative move is antithetical to the facets of deliberative
democracy. Article 111 of the Constitution empowers the President to
return the Bills for reconsideration, which implies the possibility for
modifications. Article 368 says an amendment of the Constitution could
be done generally when a Bill is passed by “a majority of not less than
two thirds of the members present and voting” in each House. Proviso to
Article 368(2) clarifies that in certain cases, ratification by the
legislatures of at least one half of the states is mandatory. The Union
judiciary and the High Courts in the States come within the ambit of
this proviso. This would mean that in a federal system, despite the
clearance by Parliament, States do have a say in any attempt for a major
constitutional amendment concerning the judiciary. It is therefore
incorrect to think that the Bills mark an end in themselves. As such,
there is scope for further debate and a need for it.

A failed experiment

The
collegium is not just a failed experiment, but has also been
undemocratic. Therefore, the real issue is whether the proposed
amendment by way of Article 124A, B and C would really democratise the
method of appointment. It is erroneous to conceive the issue of judicial
appointment as a tussle between the executive and the judiciary for a
final say in the process of selection to the higher judiciary. The
present Bill is designed in such a way that both the judiciary and the
executive have a role in the process. It is generally perceived that
just two members can veto the majority decision in the NJAC and
therefore the mechanism is defective. I would, however, say that this is
a scientific device to oust the ineligible — provided the system is
fair and transparent.

But the system is not supposed
to be transparent, going by the text of the proposed amendment.
Functionally and structurally, the NJAC would perpetuate many of the
basic deficits and perils of the collegium in a different manner. A
secret process without any benchmark that does not even accept the need
for assessment of
inter se
merit would be constitutionally legitimised. No discussions, no
notifications, no applications, no interviews, no consultations and
ultimately no democratisation either in the process or in the
institution. Openness and transparency are the
sine qua non
for any fair method of selection.

Conceptual flaws

There
is a serious conceptual flaw with the present legislative design. An
uncomfortable dichotomy between the constitutional provision and
statutory scheme emerges through the new move. While the 99th
Constitution Amendment Act would create space for the new NJAC, its
composition and voting pattern are designed not by the amended
Constitution, but by a statute, namely the NJAC Act. This would indicate
that even the sole advantage of the NJAC i.e., the requirement for
support of five out of the six members for a valid selection is
vulnerable to statutory amendment by a simple majority in Parliament.
Thus, even without a constitutional amendment, the limited virtues of
the proposed NJAC would be taken away.

Federalism is a
basic feature of the Indian Constitution as held by the Supreme Court
in S.R. Bommai (1994). On account of the NJAC, it is not the “basic
feature” of judicial independence that is endangered, as is widely
misconceived. The judiciary and the executive at the centre will
annihilate even the limited role for the States in the selection process
in the High Courts. Going by the text of Article 217 of the
Constitution, even after its alteration by the Supreme Court in the
Second Judges case (1993) and Third Judges case (1998), the Governor of
the State and the collegium at the High Court level have a participative
role in selection of judges in the High Courts. In the system now
proposed, the NJAC or the President of India is not bound by the
recommendation of the Chief Justices of the High Courts or the
Governors. Section 6(4) of the NJAC Bill envisages consultation with
senior-most judges and eminent advocates in the High Courts. But their
opinion is not binding on the NJAC. Section 6(7) says the views of the
Governor will be elicited but, again, those are not binding. Thus those
at the Centre, through the NJAC, will select the High Court Judges,
despite their lack of familiarity with the institutions of High Courts
and lack of State-level mechanism for an open system for assessment of
individual merit. This nullifies the constitutionally guaranteed federal
traits in the realm of judicial appointments.

The
NJAC thus needs to be restructured and its procedure revamped. Before
ratifying the Bills mechanically, it is for the State legislatures to
seriously ponder over the matter, for the issues are closely associated
with the state’s role in the appointment process.

The
illustrative case of the U.K. needs to be emphasised in the Indian
scenario, for it shows how the federalist values are incorporated both
in the structure of the Commission and in the procedures adopted. The
Constitutional Reforms Act (CRA), 2005 in the U.K. was substantially
altered by way of the Amendment in 2013. At present, there is a
15-member Commission doing the job of selection of judges to the higher
judiciary and tribunals. Selection commences with an open vacancy
notification.

It is again a paradox that despite the
promise for equality of opportunity in public employment guaranteed
under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, an eligible person in
India cannot apply for judgeship in higher judiciary. Nor is there any
system of open nomination. In the U.K., the concept of equal opportunity
is not alien to judicial appointments. The notification is followed by a
series of statutory consultations. The criteria for appointment as a
Supreme Court judge are indicated in Sections 50 to 52 of the statute.
The Appointment Commission has a participative, representative and a
democratic character. England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland
are properly represented in the process of consultation.

Federalism
is, therefore, not just a matter of Centre-State relation. It is, on
the other hand, a device to ensure participative role for the
representatives of the States constituting the nation, in the
decision-making process. The larger the body, the greater the democratic
content. In a vast country like ours, a six-member committee is
undemocratic due to its centralist features. Even the laymen are part of
the Commission in the U.K. It is no more an employment generation
scheme. Continued and repeated consultations and screening in the
British system ensure that no ineligible hand is inducted to the higher
judiciary. The only valid criticism against the method in the U.K is
that selection becomes a time-consuming process. But there is no
allegation of judicial corruption. Nor is there allegation of sycophancy
or nepotism. India too can afford such procedural fairness, for the
same would ensure a clean judiciary, which is a constitutional
imperative for any working democracy. But the Bills in their present
form are conceptually sterile and incapable of bringing in radical
reforms. This situation calls for dynamic legislative activism at all
levels.