The Indian Express (Delhi Edition)
‘Since Nov 8 we are winning all polls. Let’s leave the final analysis to the people of India’
Union Law and Information Technology Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad asserts that India is at the cusp of a digital change, says comments made by former CJI were “avoidable”, dismisses rumours about Justice Khehar’s elevation, and underlines the need for an
RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD: The powerful thrust on digital India is for building an empowered India, an honest India, and an accountable India. This was long overdue. Notes of Rs 1,000 and Rs 500 denomination formed 86 per cent of the cash transactions. (After demonetisation) Hawala is down, Maoist activities are down. A very unique scenario is emerging in India now. My take is that Indians first observe technology, then they adopt it, then they start enjoying it, and then they become empowered in the process. How do you explain India being home to five billion mobile phones? What is important here is India’s passion for technology. India is indeed sitting at the cusp of a digital change.
MANEESH CHHIBBER: You say India is at the cusp of a digital transformation, but at the same time, even in a city like Delhi, the problem of Internet connectivity is huge. There is the problem of call drops as well. Is the government taking steps to change that?
Two things: this is not a new problem, but this extraordinary platform has expanded inspite of these problems. Secondly, the government has done a lot of things to reinforce the tower, the BTS (Base Transceiver Station), and help with Internet proliferation and the spread of digital economy. We will also have new players coming in with better services. India’s digital economy is going to become a one trillion-dollar economy in the next three-four years.
In the past one-and-a-half years, we have seen 42 mobile manufacturing units in India, and 30 charger ancillary units. About 11 crore mobile phones have been manufactured (in India). Noida and Greater Noida are emerging as a big hub of mobile manufacturing. A lot of Chinese companies have established base in West Bengal, Uttarakhand, Rajasthan and in the south. We say come make in India for India and also export outside, to the neighbouring countries and the Middle East.
SHEELA BHATT: When Pramod Mahajan started the India Shining campaign he was also talking about similar things.
‘India Shining’ in itself wasn’t wrong. Maybe, its communication strategy was different. If you ask my view, and I was also a minister in that government, the better expression would have been ‘India has begun to shine’.
The India of 2016-17 is vastly different from the India of 2001-02. Now, people have accepted the power of this new technology. They appreciate its transformative character because it is impacting them. That is how I see it. And in pure political terms, we are winning everywhere, isn’t it?
We cannot run away from the realities of India, but inspite of all the realities, India is changing.
SHEELA BHATT: Justice J S Khehar has taken over as the new Chief Justice of India. When do you think this underlying tension between the Executive and Judiciary will dissipate?
Our commitment to the independence of judiciary is complete and total. This government is led by Narendra Modi, Rajnath Singh, Sushma Swaraj, Venkaiah Naidu and Ravi Shankar Prasad, all of whom have fought against Emergency. During that time, three freedoms were under question — press freedom, individual freedom and the independence of the judiciary. This government is led by a Prime Minister who has suffered for the sake of the judiciary.
Secondly, the NJAC (National Judicial Appointments Commission) Act was piloted by me. Except for Ram Jethmalani, who walked out from the Rajya Sabha, we had 100 per cent support for it. The Supreme Court quashed it. We accepted that.
The SC also said that the collegium system needs to be improved (2015), that there needs to be more transparency. Let me for the first time publicly share my own observation on the judgment as a student of India’s Constitution and law, and not as the Law Minister. The crux of the reasoning of the SC is, because the Law Minister is a member of the collegium, therefore when any judge is appointed through that process, then a litigant with a case against the government may feel otherwise. So will the judge be fair or not? They (the SC) quashed it. This is the sum and substance of the judgment.
I have said that we have accepted the judgment. But if the mere presence of the Law Minister creates doubts about the impartiality of the selection, then a larger question has to be raised. The Prime Minister is the principal player in the appointment of the president of India, the vice-president, the three chiefs of the armed forces. He is the main player in the selection of the chief election commissioner, the central vigilance commissioner, the Police Service Commission. I hope you understand my point. He has a nuclear button in his hand. The people of the country trust the Prime Minister to do so much, which he does either by himself or along with his ministers. The PM as the leader of his team can do all this, but he cannot be trusted to appoint a fair judge? That is the larger question.
But again, I repeat, we have accepted the judgment. The second observation I’d like to make is that we have the highest regard for the Chief Justice as well. But some of the public observations by Justice TS Thakur (the former chief justice of India) were avoidable. And in particular, I would like to say today, that on August 15, on the SC premises — I was present at the function and I didn’t say a word — the way he castigated our government on judicial appointments... The PM did not speak a word from the ramparts of the Red Fort... It’s unheard of. But I wish him good luck.
MANEESH CHHIBBER: If you have accepted the judgment, why is the government sitting on so many appointments and transfers?
I think if the judgment is binding on the government, then it is equally binding on the judiciary. What does the judgment say? The government of India is supplement to the Memorandum of Procedure (MOP) designed to make the collegium transparent for screening and appraisal of candidates. And upon the recommendations