📰 Will discuss all disputed areas with China: Bhutan
‘Border talks delayed due to pandemic’
•A day after China repeated its claims over Eastern Bhutan, Bhutan issued a rare statement, asserting that “all disputed areas” will be discussed when the Bhutan-China boundary talks, which have not been scheduled for four years, are held again.
•“The boundary between Bhutan and China is under negotiation and has not been demarcated. Twenty-four rounds of ministerial level boundary talks have been held,” a statement from the Royal Bhutanese Embassy in Delhi, made available to The Hindu , said.
•“The 25th round of boundary talks has been delayed by the coronavirus pandemic. All disputed areas will be discussed during the next round of boundary talks, which will be held as soon as it is mutually convenient,” it added.
Key statement
•The statement is significant as Bhutan’s government rarely comments on foreign policy issues or gives details of its talks with China, that were started formally in 1984. It also indicates that despite China making new claims on Bhutan’s eastern boundary, and the Sakteng forest sanctuary on the border with Arunachal Pradesh, Bhutan is prepared to discuss these in the dialogue between them.
•On Tuesday, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) had responded to questions over its assertion that Sakteng was disputed, made at the Global Environment Facility (GEF) meeting first in early June. In response, the MFA had said Bhutan’s “Middle (Northern), Eastern and Western sections of the border are disputed”.
•Reviving reference to an earlier “swap proposal” between the Northern and Western sections of Bhutan’s border, the MFA spokesperson Wang Wenbin had added, “China has proposed a package solution to these disputes. China is opposed to making an issue of such disputes at multilateral forums and China remains in communication with the relevant parties regarding this issue”.
•The Ministry of External Affairs has made no statement on China’s claims on areas bordering Indian territory.
It has to learn to work with a more multipolar world, says Minister
•External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has said that the U.S. needs to learn to work with a more multipolar world and “go beyond” alliances. His comments, made at the U.S. India Business Council’s India Ideas Summit, echoed remarks he made earlier this week that India would never be part of an alliance.
•“I think the U.S. really has to learn to work ... with a more multipolar world, with more plurilateral arrangements, go beyond alliances with which really it has grown up over the last two generations,” Mr. Jaishankar said.
•“I am now specifically referring to India, given our history of independence and the fact that we really are coming [from] different places. There will be issues on which our convergence would be more, somewhere it would be less. I think the quest in the last 20 years, and I see that continuing into the future, is really to find more common ground,” he said.
•Both India and the U.S. are currently grappling with a more assertive China and tensions in their bilateral relationships with China. “We have the ability today, by working together to shape the world…We are working on maritime security, counter-terrorism, connectivity, how to respond in the case of corona to pandemics…even issues like climate change, the knowledge economy. So, I think a large part of it is how do we actually, while strengthening our bilateral agenda, shape a larger agenda,” he said.
Innovation-tech partnership
•Mr. Jaishankar was optimistic that the trade differences between India and the U.S. could be resolved and the relationship be shifted to a “higher gear”.
•“This ability to work together in the world of innovation and technology, I think that is really what will set our relationship apart. There, it is vital that we have a …very strong convergence on the big picture.”
•Mr. Jaishankar said India was changing and the conversations India and the U.S. were currently having as, “rebalancing of the world economy conversations” where “up and coming players” have some different concerns from “ established players”. “Established players obviously want, in many cases, the advantages which work for them currently to continue in the long run. I think it will be fair to accommodate the legitimate concerns of emerging economies, emerging companies, emerging technologies. And that harmonisation, how will we do that? I think that’s a very important part of our relationship building,” he said.
•Mark Warner, Democratic Senator from Virginia and Co-Chair of the Senate India Caucus, a discussant in the panel with Mr. Jaishankar, called for a technological “alliance of the willing” to counter China’s domination in the field.
•“I think this idea of countering the Communist Party of China’s rise and desire to dominate new technologies may be a chance for a new set of cooperation [sic] between India, the United States, based on these technology alliances,” he said.
📰 Another front: On India, Bhutan and China
India and Bhutan must have complete understanding on dealing with China’s claims
•For the third time since early June, China on Tuesday repeated its claim that Bhutan’s eastern boundary was a “disputed” area with Bhutan. Its first claim was at a UNDP-led Global Environment Facility conference on June 2-3, when the Chinese representative tried to stop funding for the Sakteng forest reserve in Bhutan’s eastern district of Trashigang, which abuts Arunachal Pradesh’s Tawang district. The claim was surprising for several reasons: China has not objected earlier to funding provided to the sanctuary at the GEF. Second, the Trashigang area does not share a boundary with China. Finally, whatever the origins of the claim, Chinese officials have not raised the eastern boundary in 24 rounds of talks with Bhutan, that began in 1984. Thus far, talks have been only about the Pasamlung and Jakarlung valleys in Bhutan’s north, and Doklam and other pasturelands to the west, that come up to the trijunction point with India. On Wednesday, China referred to a “package solution” for the dispute, that is believed to refer to an offer made in the 1990s to swap the northern and western areas, something Bhutan rejected given India’s concerns. Bhutan’s response at the start was to reject China’s claim at the GEF, and it was able to secure the funding. Subsequently the Bhutanese Embassy in Delhi served a démarche to the Chinese Embassy (Bhutan does not have diplomatic relations with China), but the Chinese MFA repeated the claim in early July, and then again this week. Bhutan has now appeared to take a sober view of China’s claims by saying that all disputes would be taken up in the next round of China-Bhutan talks. Talks — the last round was in 2016 — have been put off due to the Doklam stand-off in 2017, elections in 2018, and the pandemic this year.
•Despite Beijing’s repeated statements on the boundary issue, both Thimphu and New Delhi have chosen not to react in a rash manner. For Bhutan, the Chinese claim may be seen as a pressure tactic: an attempt to hurry the scheduling of the next meeting, or to gain leverage in the boundary talks. For India, that is already dealing with Chinese aggression across the Line of Actual Control, the Sakteng claim could be a diversionary tactic, or one aimed at driving a wedge between India and Bhutan. More significantly, by claiming Bhutan’s eastern boundary, China is attempting to double down on its claims over Arunachal Pradesh, neither of which it has lien on or control of. The repetition of its “package” offer is worrying as it implies that Beijing is not giving up its push for the Doklam plateau, where it has consolidated its military infrastructure and would like to inch towards India’s Chumbi valley, a strategically sensitive location. No matter what Beijing’s designs are behind its new claims in Bhutan, New Delhi and Thimphu must stay the course, with the close cooperation and complete understanding they have shared for decades, in order to respond to them purposively.
📰 Set up a High Court for Puducherry
The administration must highlight the need to streamline expenses, the case volume and constitutional rights as factors
•In 1962, when Puducherry was merged with India, the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court was extended to it. After several decades, in 2017, the Puducherry legislature unanimously resolved to have its own High Court, and the Madras High Court was informed on July 7, 2017. Prior to this, in April 2017, the Pondicherry Bar Association also passed a resolution seeking establishment of the High Court.
•In August 2019, while addressing a State-level conference on legal services and Motor Accident Mediation Cells, Puducherry Chief Minister V. Narayanasamy said that “a Bench of the Madras High Court at Puducherry on the lines of the one set up in Madurai” was a felt need and sought the support of judges of the Supreme Court.
Sound reasons
•So, why should there be the need for a High Court at Puducherry? The Puducherry government spends exorbitant sums of money towards expenses of the large High Court. With not much of a population, this amount can be reduced to less than a quarter of the amount spent with a much smaller High Court for Puducherry.
•In fact, according to the Constitution, when a common High Court is established for more than one State, administrative expenses have to be paid only from the consolidated fund of the ‘State’ in which the principal seat of the High Court is situated. However, this provision is breached with respect to Puducherry which shares the disproportionately exorbitant expenses with Tamil Nadu. On the other hand, administrative expenses of a High Court at the Union Territory shall be drawn from the ‘Consolidated fund of India’ under the Constitution.
•A Puducherry High Court, with four to five judges, can ensure quick action on pendency of matters of the High Court matters, at least at Puducherry. In the All India Judges Association And Others vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors., the Supreme Court observed that the “time has now come for protecting one of the pillars of the Constitution, namely, the judicial system, by directing increase, in the first instance, in the Judge strength from the existing ratio of 10.5 or 13 per 10 lakhs people to 50 Judges for 10 lakh people”. This was also discussed in the Law Commission of India Report titled ‘Arrears and Backlog: Creating Additional Judicial (wo)manpower’, in 2014.
•However as of 2016, the ratio is only 12 judges for one million population. This ratio at Puducherry can be increased if a separate High Court with four to five judges is established.
A data comparison
•The number of cases filed and disposed of at Puducherry in 2010 is four times higher than the numbers at Sikkim, Manipur and Goa (with High Courts) put together. Therefore, the size of population and territory is irrelevant. Bigger States have more judges and staff, smaller States have lesser numbers of these.
•The data collected by this writer show that in terms of the number of cases filed in 2010, the figures are: Sikkim (1,117), Manipur (637), Goa (4,984) and Puducherry (24,159). In terms of the number of cases decided, the numbers are: Sikkim (1,174), Manipur (495), Goa (3,646) and Puducherry (24,336).
•Similarly, the memorandum provided by the All India Bar Association to the Chief Minister in 2017 shows that the number of cases disposed from Puducherry (28,631 cases) is three times more than the number of cases (9,031 cases) disposed by four High Courts (Tripura, Manipur, Meghalaya and Sikkim) put together in 2016.
•The presence of the Constitutional Court in the capital city acts as a check on the executive and legislature. Even the exercise of safeguarding fundamental rights involves travel, time and expenses. Several people often cite that litigants from western districts travel the long distance to Chennai. It defies logic why litigants from Puducherry need not be benefitted merely because other litigants are not benefitted, especially when the Constitution permits Puducherry to have its own High Court under Article 241.
Aiding Statehood demand
•A High Court for Puducherry will also strengthen voices seeking Statehood. The Constitution enabled establishment of a legislature and Council of Ministers for certain Union Territories with the intent of providing them Statehood gradually. Out of the seven Union Territories originally placed under Article 239A, all except Puducherry were granted Statehood by 1989. Most Union Territories under 239A at least had Benches of High Courts when they attained Statehood. Tripura, Manipur, Meghalaya had Benches of the Gauhati High Court before they got their own High Courts. Interestingly, the Delhi High Court was established in 1966 before Delhi got its legislature in 1993.
•Even a Bench of the Madras High Court as against a separate High Court at Puducherry is unfavourable because: Puducherry will still have to share the expenses of such a large High Court; judges might not prefer shuttling between Benches at Chennai, Puducherry and Madurai frequently; the protests against the setting up of the Madurai Bench a decade ago should be borne in mind. In fact, the presidential order establishing the Bench was challenged before the Madras High Court in 2004, just before commissioning the work; demand for a Bench of the High Court has always been met with stiff resistance from the Bar practising in the Court having jurisdiction. For instance, on December 12, 2019, Meerut MP Rajendra Agarwal pointed out in the Lok Sabha that “the U.P. Government had recommended a bench in 1955 but it’s the HC lawyers who always exert pressure not to allow the bench in Western UP”. Unlike Meerut, the advantage that Puducherry enjoys is that the Constitution enables Parliament to establish separate High Courts in Union Territories.
•In March 2016, the Government of India had suggested to the writer that the establishment of a High Court will be taken up if the Puducherry government proposes the idea. However, the decision of the Puducherry legislature has still not been conveyed to the Central government.
•Interestingly, though the 2017 resolution of the legislature seeks a High Court, authorities have on multiple occasions spoken of establishing a Bench of the Madras High Court. There is a popular notion that the establishment of a Bench of High Court is easier and economical as against the reality pointed out in this article. Therefore, the territorial administration should have clarity on this point.
•The Puducherry government should now form a committee to prepare a comprehensive report and a draft Bill backing its proposal and forward it to the Central government. In this the nominated Lieutenant Governor and the elected Chief Minister must work in tandem.
