When one talks of petrol and LPG, whether for use in cars or other vehicles, one has to take into account the larger issues such as availability of petrol and LPG, the effect of diverting the latter for use in cars on domestic consumption(despite the obtrusive presence of the IOC, getting LPG cylinders for domestic consumption is still a problem, and needs a lot of streamlining), the effect of both petrol and LPG on environment, leave alone the health of the vehicle, and so on.
In this connection, I reproduce a write-up on CNG published in Indya.com on April 8, 2001.
Vox Populi: CNG Jolts Delhi! How did it happen?
The Delhi government’s failure to comply with the Supreme Court order of July 1998 for conversion of the entire city bus fleet to environment-friendly CNG by March 31, 2001, has left the entire city out of gear.
Its defiant postures when the deadline approached, its related attempts to slander the judiciary and hoodwink the public to cover up its lapses, the chaos - burning of buses by angry commuters, police firing, and the reported statement by the CJI that “it is a war on the SC”, all raise a number of issues concerning India’s political and legal classes.
As the capital of India where Parliament and all the available and conceivable apex institutions of our Parliamentary democracy(including the Supreme Court) are concentrated, it is inconceivable how the Centre could have conferred Statehood on Delhi.
How could the Delhi government neglect with utter impunity matters of vital public concern, even after the Supreme Court order, and how could the Centre with all its resources be so callous as to confound the culpability of the former.
The obvious answer is that the power elite does not depend on the transport systems and are at a safe distance from the environmental pollution they cause.
If Delhi with all its five star facilities(for its power elite) itself is in disarray despite the physical presence of the Supreme Court, the plight of other States is only to be imagined.
The history of the State in India has been a sordid saga of failures, with politicians remaining in power mainly for self-aggrandizement and for settling political scores.
The related history of India’s political class has been one of rapid downhill journey in terms of political immorality; lack of transparency, public accountability and understanding of and respect for pluralism and democratic ethos; corruption, criminality, and what have you.
Seen against these, the role of judiciary, which is vital even under normal circumstances, is much more when the state abdicates its responsibilities, so much so that the judiciary has to be everywhere concerned with practically everything, from scavenging to garbage cleaning to right to health and environment(endangered by, among other things, vehicular pollution), and so on.
Obviously this raises the question whether the judiciary’s “grab is greater than its reach”, why judicial activism of the early 1990s was so short lived, and even fifty years after the Constitution came into force why the judiciary is not able to live up to the citizens’ legitimate expectations and aspirations.
In this context the judiciary has to address itself to the lack of built-in follow-up mechanisms to ensure that its decisions are enforced without waiting for the dooms day. Giving mere deadlines by the judiciary to a state, which lacks sense of time and is insensitive to social concerns will not add up.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on the transport systems in Delhi is probably in this category, though this does not in anyway exonerate or reduce the culpability of the two governments in Delhi.
When the SC “settled” the Mandal Commission controversy over reservations through its rulings of November 16, 1992, I thought it was judicial pragmatism, and published an appreciative, analytical, full page write-up, “Judicial Pragmatism, Political Opportunism”, in a leading English newspaper.
But even eight years after the rulings the states have not cared to honour the rulings.A case in point is Tamil Nadu. It still persists with 69 per cent reservations without any qualms; leave alone any attempt to eliminate the creamy layer.
A related case is the Consumer Protection Act. If my understanding is correct, the Act provides for disposal of cases brought before the Consumer Forums within 90 days.
But there have been cases before the District and State Consumer Forums not settled even three years after the petitions were filed.
The delays are mainly due to the fact that appointments of the judges and members are by the State and not by the judiciary itself, and partly due to the poor quality of the Bar and to some extent the Bench, which is a poor reflection on the integrity of our legal class.
While we have legal luminaries on our Bar who take their profession seriously and stick to the rules of the game, several members of the Bar are adjournment maniacs thriving on deceit and “legal lies”.
The sight of advocates accosting passers-by in front of some of the major courts can put to shame even the prostitutes whose profession probably warrants accosting.
It is time the apex court did something to ensure the quality and integrity of the members of the Bar.
As the Bar and the Bench are like Siamese twins and the Bar holds a mirror to the Bench and vice-versa, it will not be out of place to draw the judiciary’s attention to its own sleaziness.
A couple of years ago I happened to be in the house of a retired High Court judge. It passed my comprehension how this person managed to have such a big Bungalow in a large area of prime land, which will fetch a few crores of rupees even by a conservative estimate.
When I mentioned what I saw to some of my lawyer friends they had only one answer - he was notorious for corruption when he was in service and continues to enjoy State patronage even after retirement!
The statements I have heard from some other lawyer friends about corrupt judges in some of the District Consumer Forums dismissing cases despite prima facie evidence under the lure of lucre from the accused are in the same category.
How is it that we hear hardly anything about Bar-Bench related CBI raids? Obviously there is something amiss.
While ordinary citizens have to wait for years to get legal redress, why should the judiciary allow special courts to try a few politicians. Instead, why should it not have as many special courts as needed to ensure that any case of any significance is adjudicated within a reasonable time without allowing justice-seekers to languish in the injustice caused by inordinate delays.
