THE IGNOBLE WAYS OF LEGAL PROFESSION

To salvage the lost nobility of legal profession, it is necessary to send a strong message by throwing out the goons in gowns from the profession.

Lawyers often resort to the self-congratulatory pat that they are in the ‘noble-profession’.     I distinctly remember my enrolment ceremony about seven years ago, when one of the then members of the Bar Council congratulated the young lawyers assembled there for choosing the ‘noble profession’. Justice J. Chelameswar, the then Chief Justice of the High Court of Kerala, while delivering the presidential address in the enrolment ceremony, however clarified that law cannot claim any exceptional nobility over other professions, and reminded that it can remain noble only if it is carried out as per the ideals of the Constitution.  These words swelled my heart, and I felt reassured about my choice of profession.

The self-image of being the protectors of rule of law is necessary for lawyers to maintain their moral high ground; lest, lawyers will be regarded as mere mercenaries for their clients. At times, lawyers might fall short of keeping up with constitutional ideals, owing to personal short-comings and systemic constraints, and the legal fraternity feels apologetic about such failures.  Despite such occasional failures, lawyers still pride in being part of a noble profession, because they are striving for upholding rule of law to the best of their abilities.

But can we feel that sense of pride and self-esteem about our profession anymore, in the light of recent incidents? Of late, lawyers are in news for all wrong reasons. Lawyers being conscious participants in derailing the process of law by use of might of fist and numbers have become a disturbing and recurring trend. The legal profession hit its all-time low with the recent incident of some lawyers of Jammu Bar Association resorting to use of force and violence to prevent the filing of charge sheet in the Kathua rape-murder case of minor girl.  The Crime Branch, which was carrying out the investigation into the rape-murder case under the monitoring of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court, was caught unawares when lawyers unleashed violence to block filing of charge-sheet. The lawyers, who are reportedly supporters of Hindu Ekta Munch which alleges that the investigation is not fair, created unruly scenes in the Court premises and called for a ‘bandh’ to protest the arrests. Deepika Singh, the lawyer representing the victim-girl’s family stated that she was facing threats from the Bar Association. She complained that the Bar Association had boycotted her for taking up the case against the accused in Kathua rape-murder case.

 The images of lawyers going on a rampage, with some of them carrying the National Flag, to protest the arrest of accused brought great disrepute to the legal profession. So much so, the Supreme Court was forced to take suo moto cognizance of the agitation by lawyers, upon mentioning by certain conscientious members of the fraternity, who are now becoming a dwindling tribe.  Obstruction of process of law and delivery of justice, and that too by lawyers cannot be condoned and is unethical. Access to justice cannot be impeded by lawyers, the Supreme Court observed, while issuing notices to J&K Bar Council and Bar Association. It is highly regrettable that the Apex Court has been forced to make such observations on the character and conduct of members of legal fraternity.

 The violence unleashed by lawyers of Jammu bar is a déjà vu moment of a similarly shocking incident which happened in Patiala House Court Complex, New Delhi, during February 2016. There, self-styled ‘patriotic’ lawyers decided to take law unto their hands and assaulted Kanhaiya Kumar while he was brought before the Magistrate’s Court in connection with charges of sedition. The situation was so much out-of-control that the Supreme Court had to intervene by constituting a committee to oversee the security arrangements in the Patiala House Court complex. But even the SC-appointed committee could not save themselves from the abuses and blows showered by the lawyer-gang which behaved like a bunch of street goons. The Committee Report is vivid in its details of violence, and is powerful enough to shock anyone with an iota of sense of justice present in mind.

The common feature in both these incidents is the invocation of nationalistic symbols by lawyer-thugs to justify violence. In Patiala House, the lawyer-thugs were shouting ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’ while attacking Kanhaiya Kumar. Some lawyers were caught bragging in a sting-video that they beat up Kanhaiya Kumar till he was forced to utter ‘Bharat mata ki jai’. The lawyers in Jammu were seen carrying the tricolour during their aggressive protest march against the arrest of accused. The unruly protestors feel that their demands are in consonance with the majoritarian-nationalistic sentiments. They know that their antics will appeal to the newly emerged class of patriots, who harbour a distorted sense of patriotism tailored by the current dominant socio-political forces. Hence these lawyer-thugs dare to use patriotic symbols with impunity. They do not feel that they are doing any wrong; much worse, they feel proud about their doings.  This is a highly dangerous signal, which should send waves of shudder down the spines of all those who believe in constitutional morality. This means skewed patriotic sentiments of an unruly majority can undermine the due process envisaged by Constitution. How many times in the history of India have we witnessed the sight of National Flag being waved for shielding the arrest of those charged with rape-murder of a minor girl? 

To add a caveat, all those who are named as accused in the charge-sheet are entitled to the presumption of innocence, until their guilt is proven after trial. They are entitled to point out defects in investigation. They are entitled to demand probe by another agency, if they feel investigation is not fair. But, there is a process established by law for seeking all such demands. Our legal system is robust and capable enough to consider such demands on its merits. When lawyers themselves undermine due process of law to achieve their vested ends, it sends a wrong message to the society. How can the common man be expected to repose trust in legal process, when learned members of the bar themselves display lack of faith in our own legal system?

It is heartening that the Supreme Court has chosen to intervene in the issue.                       But, let us hope that the righteous indignation shown by the Supreme Court will not fizzle out in due course, as it happened with Patiala House incident. Almost two years down the line, the Supreme Court, in an unfortunate decision, chose to refrain from proceeding against the unruly lawyers who were responsible for the terror situation by Patiala House Court. The Supreme Court closed the case, reportedly observing ‘we don’t want to flog a dead horse’. Let us hope that the Jammu-Kathua incident also does not end up as a dead horse some years down the line. To salvage the lost nobility of legal profession, it is necessary to send a strong message by throwing out the goons in gowns from the profession.   If the images of lawyers indulging in strong-arm tactics in street do not appear as sickening and ignoble to you, then kindly refrain from using the self-congratulatory cliché  ‘law is a noble profession’ anymore!

Published in Live Law on 15.04.2018

CONSTITUTIONAL EMBARRASSMENT WHEN SC STAYS AN ORDINANCE SIGNED BY EX-CJI ON GROUND THAT IT NULLIFIES COURT ORDERS.

“When boundaries between judiciary and executive get permeable facilitating easy switch from one role to another, such constitutional embarrassments are bound to happen”.  

It is quite unusual for a law to be made to get over a particular judgment by a Court. It is further unusual if the law is not one passed by the legislature, but is made by the government through the ‘ordinance route’ .It gets more strange when the ordinance, which is specifically intended to nullify Supreme Court & High Court judgements, is approved by a former Chief Justice of India on holding the post of the Governor of State. And the plot gets thicker, when the Supreme Court stays the Ordinance on the ground that it blatantly seeks to nullify the binding effect of the order passed by the Supreme Court.

This bizarre situation is created by Kerala Professional Colleges(Regularization of Admission in Medical Colleges) Ordinance 2017[Ordinance No.21 of 2017]. To cut a long story short, this Ordinance is promulgated by Kerala Government to regularize the admissions to private medical colleges, which were cancelled by the High Court and the Supreme Court as illegal and irregular. The Ordinance is wrought with apparent legal and constitutional infirmities, which were pointed out by Live Law earlier.  The present Governor of Kerala is Justice P. Sathasivam, the former Chief Justice of India, and Live Law had earlier commented about the irony of a former Chief Justice of India signing an Ordinance to nullify a Supreme Court order. Now, the Medical Council of India has directly approached  Supreme Court challenging the Ordinance.

The obvious beneficiaries of the Ordinance are two self-financing medical colleges :- Kannur Medical College, run by a private trust, Prestige Educational Trust and Karuna Medical College, run by a private trust namely Safe Development Alms Trust.  Admissions made to these colleges during 2016-17 were cancelled by the Admission Supervisory Committee finding  that the admissions were not made through online process as per binding directions. It was also found that admissions were made without publishing approved prospectus in college website. Though the Colleges challenged the Committee’s order in High Court of Kerala,  the  Court did not accept. As per a detailed  judgment dated 28.10.2016 the laxity of the institutions in following a transparent and non-arbitrary admission process was deprecated in the strongest possible words by High Court and cost of Rupees One lakh each was imposed on both the colleges.

During March 2017, Supreme Court also confirmed the cancellation of admission. The appeals by Colleges were dismissed by bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Amitava Roy, and the plea that cancellation would cause hardship to students was specifically rejected noting that it would amount to creating a bad precedent. The review petitions filed by students also got dismissed subsequently.

After that, the Ordinance was promulgated during October 2017, enabling Government to regularize admissions in any medical college during the academic year 2016-17, “ignoring any judgment, decree, order or proceedings of any court or the Admission Supervisory Committee” . The management of the colleges seeking regularization should make an application to that effect, and the students have to pay Rupees Three Lakhs as ‘regularization fee’.

Twist after the Ordinance

But things did not go smoothly even after the Ordinance. A twist happened, when some students of Kannur Medical College, whose admissions had got cancelled, approached the  Admission Supervisory Committee seeking return of the fee remitted. The Committee found that the College had collected more than permissible fee from the students, between Rs.22 lakhs to 45 lakhs, which has to be treated as ‘capitation fee’, and issued a letter to the Director of Medical Education on 19.01.2018 for further action. 

It was a condition in the Ordinance that admissions will not be regularized if they are found to be made on payment of ‘capitation fee’. Therefore, B. Srinivas, Principal Secretary(Health), the Competent Authority designated under the Ordinance to consider applications for regularization, refused to regularize the admissions made on payment of ‘capitation fee’. The Addl.Chief Secretary(Health) Rajeev Sadanandan reported in concurrence with the Competent Authority, recommending action against Kannur Medical College. However, the Cabinet sought for another report from the Law Secretary B.G Harindranath. As per reports in Deccan Chronicle,  the Law Secretary dismissed the findings of the Committee, Competent Authority and Addl.Chief Secretary(Health), and held that the findings regarding payment of capitation fee was made without any material. Hence, the Law Secretary recommended the regularization of admissions. The cabinet chose to adopt the report of the Law Secretary and regularized the admissions.

Challenge to Ordinance by MCI

Meanwhile, the Medical Council of India(MCI), got wind of the matter, and challenged the Ordinance before the Supreme Court. MCI contended that the Ordinance is a piece of colourable legislation attempting to override judicial orders. It is also contended that the Ordinance has resulted in compromising merit in admissions. ‘Whether illegal admissions made by a medical college and the same having been invalidated by the Courts be legalized by promulgating an Ordinance’-   MCI asked in its petition.

The bench of Supreme Court consisting of Justice Arun Mishra(who headed the earlier bench which dismissed the colleges’ appeal) and Justice U.U Lalit did not take it lightly to the Ordinance. The Court observed that the cancellation of admissions was approved by it after finding that they were not given in accordance with law. “Thus, prima facie it was not open to sit over the judgment and validate those very admissions and to venture into regularising them. Prima facie it was not open to declare this Court’s order as void or ineffective as was sought to be done by way of ordnance”, observed the bench. While staying the Ordinance, the Court also made it clear that no student will be entitled to reap any benefit of any action taken and they shall not be permitted to attend the college or the classes or continue in medical colleges on the basis of the Ordinance.

Governor/Ex-CJI in tight spot

Just a day before the Supreme Court order, the Kerala Legislative Assembly had hastily passed the Bill to convert the Ordinance into legislation, in a rare show of unity between the ruling front and opposition.  Reportedly, the counsel appearing for State of Kerala submitted before the Court that the Bill had been passed, probably hoping to render the MCI petition infructuous. However, it turned out to be a furtive move, as the Bench specifically enquired whether the Bill has been signed by the Governor and notified.  Since that stage was yet to be over, the Court proceeded to consider the matter, ignoring the fact of passing of Bill by the Assembly.

Anyhow, this has now put the Governor/Ex-CJI in a tight spot. All eyes will be on the Governor to see whether he will now sign the Bill.  To sign the Bill signifies open defiance against the institution of which the Justice Sathasivam was the head a couple of years ago. But constitutional constraints attached to the Governor post might compel him to sign it.

This sort of an awkward situation would never have been envisaged by the Constitutional founders.  But, when boundaries between judiciary and executive get permeable facilitating easy switch from one role to another, such constitutional embarrassments are bound to happen.   Occupational hazards of an ex-CJI being the Governor!

Published in Live Law on 06.04.2018

THE SELECTIVE BATTLES OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA.

THE SELECTIVE BATTLES OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA.

The disciplinary actions initiated by BCI of late have given the impression that it is selective and partisan in the battles it wants to wage.

The Bar Council of India, which ceased to be truly representative long ago because to the failure to hold due elections in time, recently surprised many with a resolution. The resolution, stated to have been taken on March 18, but announced to the world on March 31 in a press conference held by the Chairman of the ad-hoc Council Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, , states that legislators who participate in removal process of a judge of a High Court or Supreme Court should not be allowed to practice before that Court/Judge. The exact wordings of the operative portion of the resolution is “the majority view of the Bar Council of India is that once process of removal of a Judge of a High Court or Supreme Court, the advocates who are MPs should not be allowed to appear before that Court/Judge”.  As is evident, there is something semantically incorrect and incomplete about resolution, which indicates that the BCI must have made some glaring omissions while taking the resolution. Perhaps, the omissions are indicative of the cavalier manner in which BCI takes important decisions.

The resolution is to be analyzed in the backdrop of the move of some MPs to pilot an impeachment motion against the present CJI Justice Dipak Misra.  On March 27, news regarding the impeachment motion floated by Indian National Congress appeared. Senior lawyers Kapil Sibal, A.M Singhvi, Salman Kurshid, Vivek Tankha and K.T.S Tulsi are also MPs of Congress party in the parliament. The resolution will   affect the practice of these lawyers if they choose to support the proposed impeachment motion. Therefore, this resolution in effect operates as a deterrent on these lawyers to associate with the impeachment proceedings. It is curious why the resolution, which is stated to have been taken on March 18, was announced on March 31, only after the news of impeachment motion came.

Flaws in the resolution.

The BCI states that the resolution is taken while considering the plea of Ashwini Upadhyaya that legislators should be barred from practicing law. He has filed a petition in the SC contending that permitting lawyers to become legislators will lead to conflict of interest. The BCI formed a sub-committee to examine the issue.  The sub-committee expressed the opinion that legislators cannot be barred from practicing law, with a lone dissent. The sub-committee also recommended that BCI may consider framing of rules barring advocates who are also MPs from appearing before Judge/Court against whom motion for removal under the Judges(Inquiry) Act has been admitted either by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or Chairman of Rajya Sabha.

The BCI resolution states that ‘the Council accepts the report submitted by the committee except the part relating to removal proceedings of judges before parliament’(emphasis supplied). Now, this is a very confusing statement. This conveys that the BCI is adopting the position that legislators should not be barred from practicing law. However, what is meant by the qualification in the acceptance made in the statement ‘except the part relating to removal proceedings of judges before parliament’? If the BCI is not accepting the sub-committee recommendation regarding the part relating to removal proceedings of judges, why has it chosen to resolve in this manner?

The resolution fails in intelligibly conveying the reason for its intention to restrain lawyers who are MPs from appearing before judges who are facing impeachment proceedings in parliament.  So long as the BCI is agreeable to the major premise of lawyers being legislators, it is not possible to locate any rational basis for its objection regarding lawyer-legislators appearing before judges who are facing impeachment proceedings. Either it should resolve to bar legislators from being lawyers’ altogether, or should state that such barring of law practice is not possible. When the BCI permits lawyers from being legislators, it cannot selectively state that lawyers should not appear in courts in which judges are facing impeachment proceedings. So long as a lawyer remains in the rolls of the Council, she is entitled to practice in all courts all over the country by virtue of Section 30 of Advocates Act 1961.  The BCI cannot impose fetters on the statutory right to appear so long as the lawyer remains on rolls. That would amount to interference with the professional autonomy of a lawyer. The statutory right of an advocate under Section 30 cannot be undermined through such a strangely and confusingly worded resolution, which does not speak of the reasons.

How can BCI curb parliamentary privileges?

Participating in a parliamentary process is the duty of a representative occupying seat in the house.  Impeachment is a parliamentary process, carried out in accordance with Constitutional provisions. A legislator has to be given full freedom to take an uninfluenced decision in the process. A legislator should not be presented with an ‘either-or’ situation while participating in the impeachment process. The resolution tends to deter legislators from freely exercising their parliamentary privileges, due to threat of curbs on their professional freedom as lawyers.

Now, if the BCI has issue with practising lawyers occupying office of legislators, let that be dealt in its entirety. When BCI skirts that issue, it cannot control the manner in which legislators, who also happen to be lawyers, exercise their parliamentary privileges.   This is a clear instance of BCI overstepping its jurisdictional domain, by taking a resolution in a manner which has the effect of curbing the parliamentary privileges of legislators, who also happen to be lawyers.

Resolution in excess of powers under Advocates Act.

The BCI is a creature of the Advocates Act 1961. Therefore, it has to act within the confines of the statute which created it.  The Act does not give any powers to the BCI to place fetters on the right to practise of advocates who are not found liable to be removed from rolls. So long as a person continues to be an advocate, it is absolutely within her powers and discretion to decide upon the courts and tribunals in which she can appear.   

If the BCI feels that a lawyer-legislator appearing before a judge facing impeachment proceedings can create conflict of interest, it is not for the BCI to decide upon the propriety of the issue. It is for the concerned judge to make a decision of recusal. As per long standing conventions of legal practise, it is the judge who decides whether to recuse from hearing a case in the event of possible doubt of bias. Recusal is an absolute judicial prerogative. That is a matter which is left to the individual conscience of the judge.

The BCI cannot act on a surmise that there will be conflict of interest if lawyer-legislators make appearance before judge facing impeachment motion. There is no tradition of a lawyers’ body deciding as to which all lawyers should desist from appearing in a case.

Strokes of confusion

Throughout the resolution, the wording used is ‘Court/judge’. Is the BCI intending to state that a lawyer-legislator should not appear in a Court wholly, when a judge of that Court is facing impeachment motion? That would mean that lawyers like Kapil Sibal, A.M Singhvi, Vivek Tankha, K T S Tulsi etc should stop their practise in Supreme Court completely, if the impeachment motion against CJI Misra gets admitted in the Parliament.  The confusing use of strokes in the wordings ‘Court/judge’ has created a sweeping ban on the right to practise of lawyers. If only the BCI had shown more application of mind while drafting the resolution! Is that too much to expect from an apex body of lawyers?

Selective battles of BCI.

The disciplinary actions initiated by BCI of late have given the impression that it is selective and partisan in the battles it wants to wage. During October 2017, the BCI had issued a show cause notice to Dushyant Dave, Senior Advocate, for his open criticism that the SC collegium had succumbed to executive pressure while arriving at the decision to transfer Justice Jayant Patel, Judge of High Court of Karnataka.  The show-cause notice and the following press release by the BCI were bizarrely worded, as the present resolution,  belying a knee-jerk response in a manner not behoving well for a body claiming to be representing advocates. It is important to remember that the BCI does not have any power to initiate disciplinary proceedings.The authority to initiate disciplinary proceeding is the Disciplinary Committee of the concerned State Bar Council and not the BCI. 

Again, during January 2018, the BCI issued another notice to Dushyant Dave, for his comments in the court during the hearing of case relating to death of Judge Loya. During the hearing, Dave had raised issues of conflict of interest and impropriety by senior lawyers Harish Salve and Pallav Sisodia.  Dave had contended that these lawyers should not be permitted to appear in the Judge Loya case as they had represented adversarial interests in previous and related proceedings. Justice Chandrachud, a member of the bench hearing the matter, remarked that it was a matter of conscience of the particular lawyer to decide upon the issue of impropriety.

The BCI however resolved to initiate proceedings against Dave on the ground that his comments amounted to misconduct. However, the proceedings against Dave were later stayed by the High Court of Delhi. It is rather surprising that the BCI did not find it necessary to examine the issue of impropriety raised by Dave. Instead, it chose to attempt to shoot the messenger, so as to bury uncomfortable questions.

The selective approach of the BCI is evident in the present resolution as well.  Why should lawyers be proceeded against for raising issues against the bench? It is for the Parliament to decide whether there is any merit in the impeachment motion. It is not easy for an impeachment motion to pass the muster, as the level of scrutiny is very high. Before such a decision is taken, why should the BCI come up with such a resolution, which can act as a pressure on the lawyers to withdraw from the impeachment motion?

Care-taker Council exceeding mandate.

Yet another important fact to be borne in mind is that the present Council is akin to a ‘caretaker government’. The term of the present Council had expired long ago, and it is continuing in office only on default to hold timely elections. Now that the elections to the State Bar Councils have been conducted as per directives of the Supreme Court, the role of the present Council is that of a mere ‘care-taker’. So, in the interests of propriety, it ought to refrain from taking crucial policy decisions, since it is not at present a representative body in the true sense of the word.

But, the present Council seems to be oblivious of all such norms of propriety, and is waging selective battles by exceeding its mandate and powers. Such instances make one wonder whether the BCI is acting to undermine its objective to safeguard the rights, privileges and interests of advocates.

Published in Live Law on 01.04.2017

HOW THE SAFFRON FORCES ARE DISINTEGRATING THE NATION?

The images of widespread violence during the #BharatBandh are really disturbing. Such acts of wanton violence, whatever be the cause, are not acceptable in any civilised society. Also, as far as I understand, the Bandh was called by Dalit organizations to protest the SC judgement diluting provisions of SC/ST Act. I do not endorse the view that holding a bandh is a way to protest a Court judgement; it is highly improper, and those aggrieved should take legal recourses.

Having said that, let's turn the focus to the larger picture. The widespread violence and destruction by Dalit protesters are symptoms of a larger problem. One needs to scratch the surface and see the root issues, before dismissing this as yet another instance of violent demonstration. It will be myopic to think that this was a mere protest against a Court judgement. It was an outward expression of pent up frustration and simmering anger at the present establishment, by a section of people who are continously feeling cheated and alienated by the present establishment, like never before.

Ever since the BJP government came to power in 2014, they have been aggressively pushing for a clear agenda -the agenda of upper caste Hindu-Hindi interests to the exclusion of all other sections of society. The consolidation of the dominant & majoritarian Hindi-Hindu forces have threatened the existence of all other sections. Therefore, other identities are desperately feeling the need to assert their identity and existence, which has created a tense and volatile atmosphere.

Look at the following instances :-

1. The Dalits are resorting to forceful protests, in culmination of long series of systematic violence unleashed on them over the past few years. Even those in power(like V.K Singh)have issued open comments condoning violence on dalits.
2. The farmers are openly protesting. The recent Long March of Maharshtra farmers, and the month long protest by TN farmers in Delhi last year are indicators.
3. Universities have become places of unrest. Look at the situation in JNU & HCU. There is a concerted attempt to destroy the academic culture of institutions like JNU to impose saffron agenda.
4. Increasing instances of communal riots. Muzzafarnagar(U.P), the recent incidents in Asansol(W.B). Not to speak of lynching of Muslims by cow-protectors. Incidents of Md. Akhlaq, Pehlu Khan etc.
5. Widening rift on the basis of language and region. The attempts of Hindi imposition have led to massive resentment in South India. The South Indian states are feeling looted and sidelined. Karnataka has come up with a separate official flag f its own. BJP shows scant regard for revered Dravidian icons like Periyar. So much so, secessionists demands for creating a United States of South India have started appearing, at least in social media.
6. Kashmir has been on boil ever since BJP assumed power. The ultra-nationalist policies of BJP have created unrest in the valley. Pellet firings, human shields, stone-pelting etc were unheard of in the past decade.
7. The worker class is also highly aggrieved by the new labour policies. Today witnessed a combined strike by all trade unions(except BMS) against the unfair labour policies of government.
8. The increased visibility and show of power by fringe Sena gangs, who hold society to ransom through their brazen acts of violence for their silly demands ranging from cow protection to film ban.

The list is not exhaustive. It can be certainly said that except for the upper caste Hindu class, all other sections of the society are feeling aggrieved and resentful with the present establishment. The arrogance of power, and utter disregard for pluralistic sentiments shown by the saffron party has caused deep fragmentation. Their attempts to impose nationalism have in fact resulted in creating disaffection to nationhood amongst sections.

Now, just honestly and dispassionately analyse. Has this country witnessed such a pathetic and dangerous state before 2014? We have had corrupt and inept governments. But no other government has caused so much disaffection and hatred amongst people tending to destabilise the idea of India. People are now increasingly thinking in terms of their identities. The ultra-nationalism imposed through saffron fist has only given impetus to growth of other sub-nationalistic feelings.

So, it is the BJP and its saffron cohorts which are acting as a "tukde-tukde" gang, causing fragmentation and disintegration of the country. Give them one more term, only at the risk of the unity and integrity of Bharath.

This is again proof of the fact that it is unwise to rule India with an iron fist with a singular agenda. Loose coalition governments, which provide accommodation of all diverse interests, are best suited for India.

Image Courtesy :- The Indian Express