Christophe Jaffrelot - Gujarat's law unto itself // Modi's oratory

Justice V.M. Sahai... declared that the "pranks of the chief minister demonstrate destruction of our democracy and the questionable conduct of stonewalling the appointment of Justice Mehta as lokayukta threatened the rule of law". 

If the Gujarat Lokayukta Aayog Bill becomes law, it will reduce the lokayukta's independence and create inequalities among states

With the Lokpal bill meeting the fate of the women's reservation bill, the lokayukta remains, in many states of the Indian Union, the only ombudsman in charge of fighting corruption among the politicians and the functionaries. But this most useful institution remains fragile, as its trajectory in Gujarat testifies.

The Gujarat Lokayukta Act introduced it in the state in 1986 (15 years after Maharashtra, which played a pioneering role in that domain). According to this act, the lokayukta is appointed by the governor after consulting the chief justice of the state high court. The first lokayukta of Gujarat, S.M. Soni, resigned in 2003. Three years later, in 2006, the chief justice of the Gujarat High Court approved the candidature of Justice K.R. Vyas, whose name had been suggested by the government of Gujarat. The year after, Justice Vyas was appointed chairman of the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission. In September 2009, the governor of Gujarat returned the file recommending the appointment of Justice Vyas as lokayukta, claiming that the man was not available for the job. 

In November 2009, Kamla Beniwal took charge as the new governor and soon asked the chief justice to put together a panel of personalities qualified for selecting the names of people who could become lokayukta.

The Gujarat government went to the court, claiming that the governor could not take any initiative in this matter, but only follow the recommendations of the council of ministers. The court agreed and Narendra Modi, therefore, in February 2010, asked the chief justice to suggest four names. Among them, the council of ministers supported the name of Justice J.R. Vora. Opponents of the chief minister objected that Vora had been preferred because, as a member of a division bench of the Gujarat High Court, he had upheld the verdict of the Vadodara fast-track court acquitting all the accused involved in the Best Bakery case of 2002 — many of whom were to be sentenced to years of jail after the Supreme Court transferred the case to Mumbai.

Then the governor asked the attorney general whether the procedure that had been followed was right and the latter objected that only one name should have been recommended, something the government of Gujarat rejected, but that the SC upheld. Then, Beniwal asked the chief justice who was the best candidate between Justice R.P. Dholakia, the president of the Gujarat Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, and Justice Vora.

The chief justice opted for the former, but the governor, instead of appointing him, asked the chief justice to recommend only one name. The then chief justice of the Gujarat High Court, S.J. Mukhopadhyay, recommended the name of Justice (retired) S.D. Dave in December 2010. The governor submitted this name to the government of Gujarat, which rejected it and suggested instead the name of Justice Vora. The chief justice replied that the man was not available any more, since he had been appointed director of the Gujarat State Judicial Academy. But Justice Dave said that he was not interested in the post.

Then the chief justice suggested the name of Justice (retired) R.A. Mehta. The governor asked Narendra Modi to appoint him. But the chief minister objected that Justice Mehta was too old (he was 75) and that he had displayed an antagonistic attitude vis-à-vis the state government. The chief justice responded in August 2011 that he had investigated the case personally and considered that Justice Mehta had "a high reputation, great integrity and his neutrality is well acclaimed, besides the fact that he has not shown any aspiration to any government post whether Central or state". .. read more:

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/gujarats-law-unto-itself/1176223/0

Modi's oratory

... what does Modi signal by trashing films that sell poverty to win foreign awards? Who decides what is selling poverty? Will filmmakers need ethical clearance from his government? His government banned Parzania, probably for selling poverty of thought, in Gujarat though the film won two national awards and nothing abroad. Aamir Khan’s Fanaa was also blocked, unofficially, probably for selling the poverty of families displaced by the construction of Narmada dam. 

It is not a coincidence that Modi rarely hides his admiration for China, or that those who root for Modi share much of his values and are excited about putting the wayward liberals in their place when he occupies South Block. They want to decide for others with Modi till Modi starts deciding for them. Other political parties have their share of autocrats. The Congress has growth hawks who, given their way, will junk all rule books tomorrow. It has ministers who want to crack down on social media. But the presence of multiple power centres in the party creates a semblance of balance. Most regional parties are one-leader shows and the result is showing in states such as Bengal. But these leaders never had or will have a free run at the Centre. The BJP today is the only national party with a single, uncontested leader. It is very unlikely that Modi can become PM without the support of allies who will cram him for space. Yet, he may change the ideas of freedom and dissent. Those who back authoritarianism may not realise its danger till they themselves are at the receiving end...

Read more http://www.firstpost.com/politics/modi-is-a-great-orator-but-his-speech-should-also-worry-us-1141969.html