The editorial, "Balancing power" (April 27) raises some pertinent questions about the role of the Lok Sabha Speaker in allowing the Aadhaar Bill to be considered a Money Bill and that of the Speaker of the Uttarakhand Assembly in refusing to allow a division - the counting of legislators' votes - on the state Budget.
Irrespective of the final verdict of the Supreme Court on the alleged partisan role played by the Uttarakhand Assembly Speaker and the consequent imposition of President's rule in the state, the Speaker's discretion should never turn into an act of discrimination.
The editorial is correct in pointing out that the two major national parties - the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party - have each taken opposing views on this debate at the central and state levels.
In Uttarakhand, the Congress is defending the rights of the Speaker, while in Delhi it is questioning them, indicating that this is possibly a problem of institutional weakness that transcends political parties. This could be an example of sheer political opportunism.
The emerging political situation calls for taking a holistic view on the matter of Speakers enjoying highly subjective discretionary powers without being questioned about the justification for their decisions. If the legislatures themselves debate and decide the in-built checks and balances required to ward off misuse of powers, this might obviate the need for frequently approaching the higher courts to intervene in such matters.
It must be borne in mind that the courts are overburdened with a backlog of pending cases, a fact recently corroborated by the Chief Justice of India.
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
Irrespective of the final verdict of the Supreme Court on the alleged partisan role played by the Uttarakhand Assembly Speaker and the consequent imposition of President's rule in the state, the Speaker's discretion should never turn into an act of discrimination.
The editorial is correct in pointing out that the two major national parties - the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party - have each taken opposing views on this debate at the central and state levels.
In Uttarakhand, the Congress is defending the rights of the Speaker, while in Delhi it is questioning them, indicating that this is possibly a problem of institutional weakness that transcends political parties. This could be an example of sheer political opportunism.
The emerging political situation calls for taking a holistic view on the matter of Speakers enjoying highly subjective discretionary powers without being questioned about the justification for their decisions. If the legislatures themselves debate and decide the in-built checks and balances required to ward off misuse of powers, this might obviate the need for frequently approaching the higher courts to intervene in such matters.
It must be borne in mind that the courts are overburdened with a backlog of pending cases, a fact recently corroborated by the Chief Justice of India.
S Kumar New Delhi
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