 "Judges, research analysts and the fine art of breath control")
A novice research analyst sitting in his Nariman Point office may have little in common with a grey-haired judge having decades of judicial experience.
But laws passed over the last year are likely to leave a mark on both their professions, and in interestingly similar ways.
The rules created in each instance were to address an undeniable issue. The need for a clear, transparent set of regulations to make sure that minimum standards are maintained when it comes to both the markets as well as the judiciary; as well as ensuring that the wrong kind of person does not end up in an important position. However, both seem to bungle exactly that.
A lot of the recent public debate around the judiciary started with a revelation about how political considerations allegedly helped a corrupt judge keep his job (Read here). There was a call to revamp the process. The obvious way forward would have been to take steps to reduce political interference, not increase it. But the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) seems intent on doing exactly the opposite. Three out of the six member commission include either a politician or people in whose appointment a politician would have a hand. This is like trying to reduce match-fixing by including casino owners in the team selection committee.
The NJAC is yet to be fully operationalised, though this is said to be eminent. Meanwhile, senior lawyers have petitioned against the abolishment of the current system of judges appointing judges without any direct political interference. While this collegium system requires improvements to fill vacancies and improve transparency, the NJAC may do more harm than good because of increased political influence.
A similar story is found in the case of research analysts. There is a need to ensure that they are adequately qualified, and clear guidelines and minimum criteria are welcome. But the regulations seem to insist that minimum post-graduate qualifications for research analysts must be received from an Indian university, thus keeping out any foreign-educated analyst. It is unclear how this helps. In fact, it artificially reduces the quality of the talent pool available to those looking to boost their research teams in a booming market.
As one chief executive puts it, he can’t hire a Harvard pass-out until he acquires five years of experience, but a fresh post-graduate from even the worst of India’s universities is fine. A lawyer has suggested that a clause allowing qualifications from affiliated colleges may help the cause of those global universities that have loose partnerships with Indian ones. But another brokerage official says he would wait for a word from the regulator before going ahead on hiring someone educated abroad. Other ambiguities such as the Securities and Exchange Board of India(SEBI) extending its influence to the press still remain.
But our talented law-makers may change things around yet. The NJAC will take time to be set up. And the financial services community has been making representations to Sebi. Both the foreign-returned aspiring research analyst and the upright judge may just have to wait awhile. But they shouldn’t hold their breath.