- Whose baby is it anyway? Extended maternity leave, intended to help women, has been weaponised against them
Bachi Karkaria writes in her column for The Times of India that what continues to amaze is the unshakeable belief that if a woman employee does something as foolhardy as having a baby, then it’s her problem, and she alone must pay the price.
It’s as if male colleagues/employers live in a baby-less bubble themselves, or are so myopic that they cannot extend the scenario to their own lives. To them, I have one question; actually two. Do new dads have no qualms about their own infants being left to iffy, impersonal care in their first vulnerable months? And, more pertinently, would it be OK if instead they, as the other half of parentage, were the ones left holding the baby?
Every city witnesses the heartless reality of women dropping off their swaddled bundles at creches as they desperately try to get to the office on time. As many as 26% of the 350 startups and small and medium enterprises surveyed in the current report said that they’d stop hiring women if they had to give them twice the maternity leave. It may be true that infant companies can’t bear such additional losses, but startups at least are the domain of millennials; so what happened to their swagger about equality and ‘work-life balance’?
The issue of extended maternity leave wouldn’t become so counterproductive if the employer weren’t saddled with the whole financial burden. So many abhiyans and andolans keep popping up. Worthy yes, but they must walk the whole distance.
- The fight for Delhi’s soul
In his column for Mumbai Mirror, Dushyant asks what does a person or a party have to do to be able to implement their vision and govern in consonance with the constitution? Win elections? Arvind Kejriwal probably believed that at some point only to realise that winning elections is not enough.
Unless you are obsessed with Indian politics, you would have been surprised by BJP spokespersons’ comments during TV debates on Wednesday after the Supreme Court announced its judgment. Some claimed that the ruling had not changed anything. One BJP official said it was in fact in the BJP government’s favour. Arun Jaitley has written a Facebook post insisting that the central government continues to remain above the LG and the Delhi government.
Political squabbles aside, the point that needs to be addressed is who is responsible for Delhi and its many problems? If the central government says it is in charge through the LG, then it is answerable to voters. The lack of leadership is perhaps bothering even the Supreme Court, which has emphasised on the need for politicians to behave like statesmen.
In less than a year, the country will have to decide if the current leaders have shown any statesmanship. I hope the voters are careful and make better choices.
- Power to the legislature
Explaining the Supreme Court’s verdict on LG-AAP tussle and what it means for the people of national capital, Shadan Farasat writes in his column for The Indian Express that the judges were unanimous that concurrence of the LG is not required for a decision of the council of ministers to be acted upon. The requirement is only to inform the LG of the decision, which in constitutional parlance is called “aid and advise”. This aid and advise of the council of ministers will be binding upon the LG. The judges also agree that the LG has no power of his own.
The constitution bench has quite rightly restored the constitutional balance and the role of LG to that of a titular head in all areas in the state and concurrent lists except public order, police and land, where he will exercise powers subject to presidential delegation under Article 239 of the Constitution. Thus, the basis of the 2015 notification of the Union government that sought to exclude “state services” from the domain of the elected government in Delhi has been undone by the four SC judges in no uncertain terms.
The judgments of constitution benches are matters of great legal significance. Casual comments on them without appreciating their full import either by members of ruling party or officers of the Union government does much harm. The Union government, and the Ministry of Home Affairs, in particular, should seek opinion of a senior law officer such as the attorney general before any position is taken on the 2015 notification in so far as it concerns “services”. Hopefully, then, the administration of Delhi can begin in the true spirit of co-operative federalism that the constitution bench has expressed profound hope for.
- Why some brother judges write concurrent opinions when CJI Misra writes majority view
Apurva Vishwanath tries finding an answer to a very prominent question in her column for The Print– Why do judges write separate opinions even when they pretty much agree with each other? She writes that A concurring opinion is given when one agrees with the conclusions but arrives at them for different reasons.
Concurring opinions are important because a plurality of views is always a good thing. Indian judges are anyway known for agreeing with each other a bit too much and staying away from voicing dissent. But what is more troubling is that even when they agree, they do not critically engage with the views of their colleagues. For an ordinary citizen to read these judgments that greatly affect them, it is tiresome to go through hundreds (in some cases thousands) of pages of similar views.
Judges who dissent know the costs all too well. They dissent in spite of the consequences and almost as a testament to their contribution to law. They know they will stand out. Justice H.R. Khanna had written to his sister the consequences of his monumental dissent in the Habeas Corpus case during the Emergency. Perhaps because Indian judges do not dissent, they look at concurring opinions to contribute to the march of law and stand out. The legendary Justice Krishna Iyer’s concurring opinions still stand out and are cited more often than the majority views. But not every judge is Iyer.
- AAP vs Centre Row: Democracy Lives! But Let’s Hope it Lasts
This Fourth of July will go down as a memorable day in the history of Delhi, writes Ashutosh in his column for The Quint. He says that on this day, the Supreme Court decreed that the administration of Delhi will be run in accordance with the workings of the elected government, and not on the directions of a bureaucrat.
This a victory for democracy and proves that India’s institutions still have life in them. The only regret for the people of Delhi will be that this order has come so late. The people of Delhi suffered unnecessarily. Development stopped. Hopefully, with the Supreme Court verdict, the Delhi administration will run more smoothly.
Decisions would be made without the ministers even hearing about them. Important files were left hanging for months. Any step, any work that could have made the AAP government look good was obstructed; the prime example of this being the Mohalla clinics. The Former UN General Secretary even wrote a letter praising this move. But all work towards these clinics was stalled.
It is also clear from the SC’s judgment that irrespective of whether Delhi’s officers are centrally appointed IAS or from some other cadre, once their appointment has been made in Delhi, then they have to work in accordance with the elected government. They will not be able to do their own thing. The Lt Governor won’t be able to get them to do his bidding.