Judiciary Vs Executive: Justice Chelameswar Invokes ‘King Can Do No Wrong' To Counter VP Dhankhar
In a sharp escalation of the Judiciary vs Executive showdown, Justice Chelameswar invoked the historic phrase 'King Can Do No Wrong' to hit back at Vice President Dhankhar's criticism of the Supreme Court's powers. The former Supreme Court Judge countered strongly, asserting that the Judiciary's role is to uphold justice fearlessly — a cornerstone of democracy. In an interview with Hindustan Times' Kumkum Chadha, watch Justice Chelameswar's exclusive take after VP Dhankhar's tirade.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
an hour ago
- The Print
India's myopic view on tax policy hurts FDI. Fix it before it breaks the camel's back
For emerging markets like India, FDI holds the promise of technology transfer, job creation, and overall economic development. The Manmohan Singh government in 2008 relaxed FDI norms by allowing greater foreign investment in sectors such as telecom, defence, and insurance through the automatic route, which improved investor sentiment and resulted in an FDI surge. However inaction on urgent banking sector reforms eventually led to a dip in sentiment and inflows. Investor confidence and FDI inflows surged again in 2014 and 2019 on the back of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government's ease of doing business, but enthusiasm has petered out over the last few years. The court's rejection of AGR waiver requests leaves telecom operators with over Rs 80,000 crore in outstanding payments. Similarly, the application of dual taxation will now allow state governments to levy entertainment tax on DTH broadcasters (service tax is already charged by the Central Government as a part of GST). At a time when private investments are already at decadal lows in the domestic market, a myopic view on tax policy may be the last straw that breaks the camel's back. India's net foreign direct investment inflows fell from $10.58 billion in 2023 to $ 0.4 billion in 2024, the sharpest drop in two decades. This reflects global uncertainty, as well as deficiencies in the country's business climate. The Supreme Court's recent rulings dismissing the waiver of interest and penalty pending on the Adjusted Gross Revenue from telecom operators, and judicial sanction to dual taxation on Direct-to-Home services , may further dampen investor sentiment. Tax policies are an important determinant of sentiment, because investors seek stable and predictable tax regimes. In the AGR case, the Supreme Court's retrospective tax compliance requirements have generated significant financial repercussions for telecom companies, potentially even risking bankruptcy for certain operators. Similarly, the imposition of dual taxation and license fee demands on DTH broadcasting creates an added burden on service providers, challenging the industry's viability and potentially leading to higher costs for consumers. These decisions also throw light on the need to review the judiciary's role in economic regulation. Also read: Ease of Doing Business: If World Bank sees beyond Delhi & Mumbai, India will do better In search of tax certainty Despite economic liberalisation, India continues to struggle to develop a consistent tax policy approach for trade and commerce. The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government's decision to amend the Income Tax Act in 2012 and retrospectively apply it to indirect transfers is a prime example. Besides dampening investor sentiment, the decision also attracted a slew of lawsuits by companies such as the Cairn Group and Vodafone in international courts and the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The NDA government promised reform in its 2014 manifesto, and a full seven years later, passed the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Bill 2021, which nullified the 2012 amendment. Tax reform, then, seems always to follow from sharp economic pains. It is time for more proactive thinking on tax policy, which can no longer be guided only by the limited objective of revenue maximisation or hawkish enforcement to meet steep internal targets. This approach does little to encourage innovation, domestic value generation, or investment, and there is much evidence on offer. The retrospective application of 28 per cent GST on online real-money games in 2024 has already eroded billions of rupees in market value, and generated uncertainty and ambiguity within a high-growth digital market segment. Also read: India's record net FDI plunge reveals a troubling trend—outward FDI beats investing at home A two-step approach to reform As per the International Monetary Fund (IMF)'s Handbook on Tax Law Design and Drafting, the executive should primarily interpret tax laws. This is the case in countries like the United States, where the Internal Revenue Service issues detailed rules, regulations and procedures to interpret the legislation passed by the Congress. However, in the case of India, flawed policy modelling has led to growing judicial intervention in clarifying and settling tax controversies. While courts play a vital role in resolving disputes, they should exercise caution in intervening and correcting market failures in dynamic and competitive markets. Judges must recognise the unique characteristics of these industries and exercise restraint, ensuring their actions support rather than hinder progress. A measured judicial approach is necessary to foster a thriving environment that benefits both industry players and the wider public. Simultaneously, India needs a clear guidance for commercial tax policy, to sustain economic growth. The introduction of the Direct Tax Code is a step in the right direction. But the government should go further. The new wave of capital and technology intensive industries need a new tax compact; one that is pro-growth and sensitive to their needs. This can be achieved by encoding well-known tax principles as the touchstone for both rule-making and enforcement. A well-crafted charter for commercial taxation can lay the foundation for a fairer, more efficient system. Such a charter should ensure that taxation does not distort business decisions or market behaviour by grounding itself in the principle of neutrality – so that decisions are made on economic merits alone. It should prioritise clarity and simplicity, reducing the complexity of tax obligations and making compliance more straightforward. Certainty and stability are equally vital but often ignored. Finally, the charter must be designed to keep pace with modern economic realities, adapting to digital business models that sometimes operate on wafer thin margins but produce outsize economic impact. Samrridhi Kumar and Anugya Singh are analysts at Koan Advisory Group. Views are personal. This article is part of ThePrint-Koan Advisory series that analyses emerging policies, laws and regulations in India's technology sector. Read all the articles here. (Edited by Zoya Bhatti)
Hindustan Times
4 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
AI must be subordinate to fairness, equity, human dignity: Justice Surya Kant
Supreme Court judge Justice Surya Kant has said justice cannot be reduced to a digital product, warning that artificial intelligence (AI) must always remain subordinate to fairness, equity, and human dignity. 'Justice, unlike software, is not a product to be optimised, but a principle to be honoured. Technology must remain subordinate to our higher commitments to fairness, equity, and human dignity,' said Justice Kant, who is set to become the Chief Justice of India in November. Speaking at Microsoft's Fireside Chat on 'AI and Law' on June 6, Justice Kant cautioned that while AI promises to enhance access, efficiency, and transparency in the legal system, unchecked deployment could mirror and even magnify existing societal inequities. 'Technology, if left unchecked, can reflect and reinforce societal inequities. AI is not a perfect technology, and it can perhaps never replace the human element that the entire Rawlsian theory of justice hinges on,' he said. Rawlsian theory refers to the philosophy of justice developed by John Rawls, an American political philosopher. The core of the theory is the concept of 'justice as fairness', which aims to reconcile the seemingly competing values of freedom and equality. Justice Kant acknowledged the global nature of the challenges AI presents, particularly issues like algorithmic bias, hallucinated legal citations, and data protection. 'Take, for instance, the fictitious legal precedents that chatbots routinely come up with when faced with complex legal propositions,' said Justice Kant, warning of the risks of relying blindly on AI in sensitive domains like law. He spoke about growing cyber threats to courts and the judiciary, including ransomware attacks and doxing of judges, and said such digital risks were now 'a matter of constitutional resilience.' He said India has responded proactively, with secure e-filing platforms, the National Judicial Data Grid, and virtual hearings backed by multi-layered authentication. 'Cybersecurity is not a matter of IT hygiene, but of constitutional resilience…courts must invest not just in secure infrastructure, but in public confidence,' Justice Kant said. Justice Kant said the adoption of AI must not be driven by novelty or efficiency alone. 'We do so not as passive observers, but as stewards of a future we must shape with wisdom and purpose… Shaping the future demands more than innovation—it calls for an unwavering adherence to foundational values.' Justice Kant said India's judicial digital transformation, while ambitious, is being shaped through collaboration between technologists, judges, civil society, and academics via a dedicated Centre for Research and Planning within the Supreme Court. He referred to India's evolving legal-tech landscape and initiatives reshaping the courts including SUVAS, the Supreme Court's translation software that has enabled over 100,000 judgments in 18 regional languages, Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) systems in Constitution Bench hearings for real-time transparency, and LegRAA, a legal research tool that aids without replacing judicial reasoning. 'These technologies are designed explicitly to support, not supplant, human judgment. It preserves the essential human element of jurisprudence, ensuring that final legal Page 6 of 13 interpretations remain firmly rooted in wisdom, compassion, and ethical discernment,' he said. Justice Kant called for building AI systems that reflect functional competence and moral clarity. 'I remain firmly convinced that any contemplation of AI must be guided by a deep moral compass. Shaping the future demands more than for an unwavering adherence to foundational values. Transparency, equity, responsibility, and respect for human dignity must not be afterthoughts, but the pillars upon which all technological advancement rests…Let this dialogue between technologists and jurists be not the end, but the beginning of a sustained collaboration, one where justice and technology walk hand in hand, with the citizen always at the centre.'
Hindustan Times
4 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Apex court rejects plea filed by Tamil Nadu on education funds
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a plea by the Tamil Nadu government seeking an urgent hearing in its suit against the Union government for allegedly withholding over ₹2,000 crore in funds under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme (SSS), citing what the state described as 'coercive tactics' by the Centre to force the state to implement the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. 'For how long has this fund not been given? What is the urgency now?' a bench of justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan asked senior advocate P Wilson, who mentioned the matter on behalf of the Tamil Nadu government, seeking an expedited listing. As Wilson flagged the constitutional right to free and compulsory education of nearly 4.8 million students in the state being adversely impacted, the bench remained unconvinced and declined the request: 'The plea is rejected.' The brief exchange took place during the Supreme Court's ongoing summer recess, now designated as a period of 'partial court working days' where only two to three benches sit and only matters of pressing urgency are usually considered, in addition to some old cases where both sides have given their consent to argue during the break. The regular functioning of the top court will resume on July 14. Filed under Article 131 of the Constitution, Tamil Nadu's suit accuses the Centre of linking its annual share under the SSS to the implementation of the NEP 2020 and the PM SHRI Schools Scheme -- a condition the state calls 'unconstitutional, arbitrary and coercive.' According to the suit, the Project Approval Board had approved a total outlay of ₹3,585.99 crore for Tamil Nadu under the SSS for the financial year 2024–25, of which ₹2,151.59 crore was to be the Centre's 60% share. The state claims this amount was not released solely because of its principled opposition to NEP 2020. Tamil Nadu, ruled by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), has been a vocal critic of the NEP, particularly its three-language formula, which the state believes undermines its two-language policy rooted in Tamil linguistic pride and regional identity. 'The Union Government seeks to coerce the State to implement the NEP-2020 throughout the State in its entirety and to deviate from the education regime followed in the State,' the suit submitted, while asserting that the SSS is a standalone scheme that should not be tied to compliance with any other olicy. The suit further alleged that the withholding of funds 'cripples the implementation of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009,' directly impacting 4.39 million students, 2.2 lakh teachers, and over 32,000 school staff in the state. The state's legal team has argued that the Centre's move violates the spirit of cooperative federalism and amounts to an 'usurpation' of the state's constitutional powers to legislate on education, which falls under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List. Tamil Nadu has also urged the Supreme Court to declare that the implementation of the NEP and the PM SHRI Schools Scheme, which mandates full compliance with NEP, is not binding on the state. It has sought a direction to the Centre to immediately release ₹2,291 crore (including interest), claiming the delay is 'not only illegal but also violative of constitutional morality.' While the plea for an urgent hearing has now been declined, the main suit continues to be listed for regular hearing. The standoff comes amid a broader constitutional tussle between the Tamil Nadu government and the Union government. On April 8, the Supreme Court struck down Tamil Nadu governor RN Ravi's controversial move to reserve 10 re-enacted state bills for presidential assent, and the matter is now part of a presidential reference pending before the top court.
