Why Not A MAC?
By
J.L. GUPTA
Years
back when I was still trying to find my way in Court, there was a rumor that
the person who had been appointed as the
Law Minister in the Union Government was
not even a law graduate. The media was not as alert and active as it is today.
Resultantly, the matter was soon
forgotten. Nobody had raised any ruckus.
Recently, again, when a young lady was sworn in as a Minister, the issue
of her educational qualifications was picked up by the media and the people.
The factual position is getting clearer.
However, a question that arises is – Can the Prime Minister pick up anyone whether literate or illiterate and the
President of India is bound to
administer the oath of office to such a person? A similar issue would also
arise in the States too.
We have a written Constitution. We are governed
by the Rule of Law. No one, howsoever high can act arbitrarily. Not even
the Prime Minister of
India. Everyone has to act reasonably and within the limits of law.
These principles have been
repeatedly laid down by the Supreme Court. Resultantly, no
one can appoint a person as even a peon unless he fulfills the prescribed
qualifications and has gone through a process of selection. Why should the
Ministers be an exception even to such a salutary principle?
The
Parliament has recently approved the Bills to constitute the National Judicial Appointments
Commission. Seeing the controversy surrounding the selection of Ministers a
thought that crosses the mind is -Should we not consider the desirability of having the MAC –the Ministers’ Appointments
Commission too? The constitution of the commission can be broadly on the same
lines as that of the JAC.
In
my view such a Commission could help the Prime Minister and the Chief Ministers
to select the most suitable persons as Ministers. The process shall ensure
transparency and inspire confidence in the minds of the people. A person who
may be under a cloud shall be eliminated at the time of scrutiny by the
Commission. Still more, it shall be possible to pick up experts in different
fields for inclusion in the Cabinet. Further more, the Prime Minister shall be
saved the embarrassement of having to
plead ‘coalition dharma’ in the manner
that Mr. Modi’s immediate predecessor
had to on certain occasions. It is true that Mr. Modi has a massive mandate. He
is not a dummy but a Dynamic leader. Still, it could help the Government to select
and appoint the most suitable persons as Ministers.
Today,
the government may justifiably feel that such a Commission has never been
appointed earlier. Thus, it is not necessary to do so. However, the Elections
shall soon be held in the States. At that stage the Act may legitimately be
invoked for the avowed object of serving the larger public interest. How? Some
of the provisions could be :-
1.
Laying
down a firm limit on the number of Ministers etc. who could be appointed in a
State. This would substantially control the numbers and reduce the expenses. We
need to remember that even economy is a source of revenue;
2.
Prescribe
academic and other qualifications including experience etc. so that the
Minister can perform his functions effectively;
3.
Nobody
who has already got 2 children and has not undergone surgery so as to ensure
that he does not add to the numbers in the country shall be eligible to become
a Minister; hold any other elected office; or even to claim any benefit of
reservation etc. as may be granted by the State or an Authority to the Socially
and educationally backward class of citizens or to the members of any minority
etc.;
4.
A
provision for absolute exclusion of persons facing a criminal charge or those
under a cloud can also be made.
I hope that the MAC would help to clear the
peoples’ perception of the politicians. It should also fill the gap between the
politician’s promise and performance. Shall it ever happen? Time alone shall
tell. We have to wait and see.
Too radical...distinction between M and J in a parliamentary democracy...M already (s)elected by the People.
ReplyDeleteInteresting concept Uncle. Wonder if it will fly in India, though the idea of having basic qualifications is very important. In the US where there is a complete separation of powers, for the Secretaries and other key civilians posts, the appointment is made by the President and then confirmation is by Senate and during Senate hearings a lot of vetting is done. Many a nomination have failed due to some law violations in the past. eg having a underpaid maid or an illegal immigrant as a maid. This system provides the checks and balances. In India we definitely need some sort of screening. People with criminal backgrounds should defnatly not be allowed to be Ministers. However the question is of those who are merely accused and not convicted. Since cases drag on for several years in courts, this may cause injustice to someone who may be eventually found not guilty as non-eligibility for Ministerial position would also serve as a punishment. Regarding educational qualifications, it should go side by side with ensuring a high literacy rate, so that people are not disenfranchised.
ReplyDeleteGreat idea sir! Time has come for radical measures. It would particularly help in case of 'coalition compulsions'. However, the Indian brain is too fertile and cleverness has seeped into our DNA - they will find a way out (actually a way in!) by pushing in stooges as substitutes or other innovative methods like Lalu propped up Rabri.
ReplyDeleteAs regards the issue of cases dragging on, well, in national interest, cases of such ministerial candidates can be put on Super Fast Track (like the much touted Bullet Train) and resolved in 6 months. This would be a double edged sword - as the potential ministers in question tainted with criminal charges would find themselves in jail sooner! So you kill two birds with one stone.
An industrialist friend of mine was once propagating the virtues of our present 'elastic' and 'inclusive' democracy in an informal chat. Neither of us drinks, so it was an authentic and not a 'spirited' drawing room discussion. I asked him to answer a simple question - for his many industries, in order to run efficiently, how did he appoint his work force? Was it on pure merit and qualifications or did it depend on what region he came from, what caste he represented or a quid pro quo basis? He paused and said of course on merit and suitability for the post. I said I rest my case. To run an industry we look for merit, but to run the country it is all kinds of considerations mainly based on 'you scratch my back, I scratch yours'.
Enlightening.
ReplyDeleteBrilliant suggestion absolutely! The only hitch one encounters is that the office of an MP is not a substantive office. Besides age and citizenship the only other qualification required is the verdict of the people of this democratic country.
ReplyDeleteThe condition of being elected is absent in the case of appointment of judges. The requirement of being elected and the appointment of MPs being made by the commission is difficult to reconcile.
Although as a counter to the existing situation, the election rules for students in the university is submitted. To contest elections to the student body, the candidate is required to possess 75% attendance and no re-appear in any subject. So the students have to deal with more stringent rules on this account.
Considering this fact we definitely need to overhaul the system and the author's thought is timely and a push in the right direction.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRegarding education of our elected MPs, my view is that since our constitution does not specify, for good reasons, minimum education to be a MP, demanding it undermines the democracy. What would be the minimum - a high schooler, a university graduate or a post graduate? According to 2001 census, barely 14.1% of India’s population were high school leavers and only 6.7% graduates and above. Setting of minimum educational qualifications would eliminate the greater majority from contesting elections. That will be a regression of democracy.
ReplyDeleteSince every MP of the majority party can be appointed a cabinet minister, the possibility is that the nation could end up with one or more ministers, or even a PM, who are not graduates. MMS had at least five ministers in his cabinet who were not graduates. Indira Gandhi, who many consider the best prime minister, was not a graduate and nor was Rajiv Gandhi
In my opinion possession of a degree is irrelevant. It is the intelligence, common sense, integrity, proven commitment to serve fellow countrymen and ability to govern and implement that should be the makings one should expect from ministers. I do not believe the above attributes are enriched by holding a graduate degree or get diluted if you don’t have one.
In the controversy over Ms Irani’s lack of a degree, BJP’s manifesto (page 22) could be discomfiting. It says: “BJP believes that education is the most powerful tool for the advancement of the nation,” and that “India has to become a knowledge society and has to reverberate with educated skilled manpower of high standards required to meet the challenges of 21st century” It further adds: “This requires a bold and visionary leadership”. These words should make Ms Irani writhe and BJP and NaMo feel embarrassed.
MPs are chosen by the aam aadmi. Educational qualification of each candidate are made public by the Election Commission. Aam Aadmi ought to make a clear choice at the time they vote. If the voters decided to elect a fascist, rightist, and communal party and the party selects a non-graduate MP as an education minister then the voters got what they deserved.
MAC or no MAC is a solicitous question brilliantly presented by Uncleji. One can argue this equally convincingly from both points of view. To me equating JAC to MAC is like matching apples to oranges.
Jai Hind