This refers to the editorial "Judicious economics" (October 23). The suggestion that courts should factor in the economic consequences of their judgments is dangerous and impossible. The job of balancing equity, growth and efficiency is the government's. In doing so, the government has to ensure that it stays within the law, and that includes environmental, forest, land acquisition, granting of scarce resources and tribal protection laws. The government has certain discretionary scope, but the law requires that discretion to be exercised with due care and be justifiable - not whimsical. The courts are there to uphold and interpret the law, and are not mandated to weigh the economic fallouts. Such calculation is often complex and incapable of being such that it will be found uniformly acceptable. A steel project owner will think the cutting of trees or using up thousand acres of farm land is economically justified; farmers may not agree. Even reputed economists such as Jagdish Bhagwati and Amartya Sen can't agree on this, how would a court of law reach a conclusion?
Letters can be mailed, faxed or e-mailed to:
The Editor, Business Standard
Nehru House, 4 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
New Delhi 110 002
Fax: (011) 23720201
E-mail: letters@bsmail.in
All letters must have a postal address and telephone number
P Datta Kolkata
Letters can be mailed, faxed or e-mailed to:
The Editor, Business Standard
Nehru House, 4 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
New Delhi 110 002
Fax: (011) 23720201
E-mail: letters@bsmail.in
All letters must have a postal address and telephone number