Bureaucracts are Public Servant & Not Masters

Yes, good evening, and thank you everyone who have joined us today at this evening session. NISSMAT has been conducting webinars for the last about two years. We have conducted about 130 webinars which are addressed, or which were addressed, by two scholars. Then we started a new series, that is the interactive series, which is addressed by one expert on the subject, and then the delegates interact with him. Today's interactive session on "Bureaucrats Are Public Servants and Not Masters" shall be addressed by a senior educator of Supreme Court of India and an illustrious scholar, Dr. Surat Singh. I extend warm welcome to the eminent speaker and also all the delegates who are present in this session.

Let me introduce in a few words. NISSMAT was established about three decades back. It started training in private security subjects and safety, security and applied technology, basically concerning the private security industry. Today NISSMAT has become a think tank organization and has a situation more than 90 scholars who regularly give inputs to us and also to the audience and the delegates from whom we will receive responses. Now the NISSMAT has established four wings. One is NISSMAT Forum, which organizes webinars, seminars, interactive sessions, prize distributions, award-winning ceremonies, debates and declaration. The second is this method, can we, we are in the process of conducting virtual training programs. The third is NISSMAT Enterprise. NISSMAT Enterprise shall undertake audits and studies in various sectors and also it should establish alliances and partnership in India and abroad. Then we have on the wings NISSMAT Foundation, which will undertake welfare and social work for the society at large, particularly with reference to the security and safety subject. With this, having introduced to you NISSMAT, I now proceed to give, to speak, to say a few words about our chairman.

Our chairman, Captain, took voluntary retirement from the army at a very young age and started his business career, which was an unknown field to him, but with his warmth, with his empathy, he has always been getting support from other people. He has an internal sense to find out a silver lining in the worst situation. As well as the private security industry is concerned, he is considered to be a very fearless voice in the industry. He doesn't follow and mask what others say, has his own independent opinion, which is very well recognized and appreciated by the industry at large. A businessman who is unafraid of truth and a thoughtful and inspiring leader, he has created alliances all over the world under the name of Alea Holdings Private Limited. Multiple locations and multiple offices are here in India and abroad. With his risk-taking attitude, continuous perseverance, he has grown, he has evolved, I would say, and achieved a position of prominence in the business world. The past president and former chairman of Council of International Investigations USA, and is an awardee of Malcolm Thompson Award and the Kotalia Award. He shall moderate the session.

A few words about the subject, that is, bureaucrats are public servants and not masters. In India and also in some other countries, for years the political dominance due to co-joining of the political masters with the bureaucrats has given a very bad connotation to the public servants. This sort of attitude at times results in moral administration and dominance of bureaucracy over the citizens. Indeed there is a tendency amongst the officers, bureaucrats, to consider themselves as masters of the public. In the democratic system, as we all know, the people are supreme, but the bureaucrats, who have gained due to their attitude a negative reputation and connotation, have been aligning somehow with the political masters and not following the laid down norms, the laid down principles of constitutional norms and connected laws. In fact, as far as India is concerned, the civil system which was introduced by the British royal boss meant more to have loyalty with the government than with the citizens. This liability with the British government has continued to other form with the lifetime to the political masters today, and this is the reason of bureaucracy becoming negative as well as the publication. Sir, in one of the landmark judgments, the Madras High Court has shaken up the bureaucrats and said bureaucracy is meant to function as per elected laws for the ultimate welfare of the citizens at large. The change of goal posts must take place as early as possible, and instead of considering themselves as masters, they should consider themselves as servants of the public. Dr. Surat Singh will elaborate in another state on this subject. With these words, I sponsor the session to Mr. Pomanjeet to moderate the session. Thank you very much.

Mr. President, as I speak, we are streaming live on Zoom and YouTube. I'd like to acknowledge the sponsors for the evening today: Premier Consulting and Investigations, Pre-machine Private Limited, India Skills Private Limited, Tag Scores, My BCD and JMD Cargo. I request you all to remain muted during the session, have your videos on and switch off your cell phone so that you can enjoy the conversation undisturbed and also you'll have no side distractions, and please prepare to ask as many questions as you want to.

What about our illustrious president, Mr. CP Singh. A master's in English literature, he served the Government of India in extremely senior police assignments all across the country. He was made responsible by the Government of India to raise a new force called the Rapid Action Force, and he was also its first chief. He was later asked to raise and head the Internal Security Academy, a central police academy at Mount Abu in Rajasthan. During his service he was decorated with the Police Medal for Distinguished Service, the Indian Police Medal for Meritorious Service, a Special Duty Medal with bar, a Sarah Medal and another, and a number of other commendations and rewards. Post retirement he worked as a consultant with Tesco. He was also the chairman of the technical committee of Quality Control of India, which formulated the standards for ratings of the private security industry. He was involved in developing the curriculum of private security guards training under the security sector and skill development council. He was head of the committee that designed and worked out national occupation standards for training of private security guards and qualification packs for the firefighters. In 2009 the President of India awarded him as Security Personality of the Year. He is currently an advisor to the Asian Professional Security Association, the central decision of private security industry, and the Association of Private Detectives and Investigators. Mr. CP Singh's face is well known as a dynamic security professional, and he's frequently called to share his views on various subjects connected to homeland security on national news channels.

Today I have the distinct privilege of introducing Dr. Surat Singh. Dr. Surat Singh is Harvard and Oxford educated. He is one of the top lawyers of India. He practices at the Supreme Court of India and the Delhi High Court. He's also an international lawyer. He was educated at Delhi, Oxford in England, Harvard in the United States. With his three masters degrees in law from Delhi, Oxford and Harvard, his doctors of laws from Harvard, he is arguably the highest educated lawyer in India. Incidentally, he is also the classmate of the U.S. President Barack Obama. They studied together in Harvard in 1992. Dr. Surat Singh returned to India and started his law career under the mentorship of the then Attorney General of India, Dr. G. Ramaswamy. Dr. Surat Singh's list of professional achievements is too long. To date, Dr. Singh has successfully handled complex legal cases involving land and real estate properties valuing more than 250,000 crores, which is roughly equivalent to about US 50 billion. He's worked for the state governments, the central government, top corporate houses and PSUs.

Dr. Surat Singh is a very passionate person and he works with other top Indian lawyers to improve the educational training and law practice methods of India. He has lectured extensively in Indian and international law schools campuses. Dr. Surat Singh's opinions, analysis, features regularly published in most prestigious of newspapers and magazines, and is a much sought-after panelist on TV channels on debates on high value national and international issues. Dr. Surat Singh has been awarded numerous honors and awards: the Pride of India Award in 2011, the International Peace Award in 2001, the Social Scientist of the Year Award in 1999 and Eminent Jurist Award in 1997. Dr. Surat Singh served as president of the Harvard Club of India two terms. He is president of the Harvard University Alumni Association of Asia from 2004 to 2006 and is the honorary secretary of the Oxford Cambridge Society of India. Dr. Surat Singh has his own law firm, Surat Singh and Associates, and is based out of New Delhi, and it offers legal services to national and international clients in corporate and business matters. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you Dr. Surat Singh.

Thank you very much, Chairman Captain Ahluwalia ji, distinguished President CP Singh ji, Deepak, other distinguished friends and all the wonderful audience who has taken time out to tune into this webinar. Thank you very much, Captain, for such kind words and detailed introduction. You are doing such a wonderful job in educating the people about the issues of critical importance. 137 webinars is a lot of achievement in such a short period. It is indeed a privilege to address such an august gathering which attached to your webinar website.

Today the topic is bureaucrats are public servants and not masters. They should be, but are in fact. At Harvard, one term which we used to use many often was rhetoric versus reality. Natasha, will you please show that. So there's a difference between rhetoric, what's it, reality. Rhetoric means what we say; in Hindi you can say also shove the jaw, what do we say. But reality is how things operate. Now in rhetoric we say that public servants are our servants, but in reality, the way they operate, they yield so much power that calling them servant would be inviting trouble. In fact, neither they consider themselves like that, nor they were supposed to be.

When Government of India Act 1935 was adopted, and mind you, out of Indian Constitution, out of 397 provisions, more than 256 have been taken out of Government of India Act. Government of India Act was no charter of liberty. It was a device by the government, British government, to control 330 million people at that time, and never more than 300,000 English people came to India. It means for every 1100 percent there was one English man or woman, for that matter. So it was a government for the crowd control, not a promoter of liberty. When India got independence, we adopted our Constitution, and in our Constitution the rhetoric is: we the people of India give this constitution to us. So the masters, as per the rhetoric, are people. But are they in reality? In reality, the power is with the officers. We the officers, be the politicians, we the judges, be the wealthy people.

Now of course, requirement of law and order is there; without that such a vast country cannot be managed. I can appreciate that. But whether the power which is needed to maintain law and order is really balanced to the other aspect of the government, that is protection of liberty, dignity of people, and government servants are supposed to those purposes. But unfortunately, power is given for a certain purpose, but in real exercise that purpose most of the time is defeated. Of course there are honorable exceptions and we salute them, those who exercise the power for the purpose it is given, but most of the time power is abused for ulterior purposes. That's why we lawyers go to the court, find out abuse of power and argue that government should act in a reasonable and fair manner.

But now the very structure of the government is full of contradiction. Kindly see Indian Constitution, which is the fundamental law of the land. It has two parts. One part I will call progressive and other part I will call authoritarian. It's interesting that Indian Constitution we all worship, we all adore, we all abide by that, but as a constitutional scholar it is my duty to point out what Indian Constitution is really like. Now there's a progressive part, like the preamble. We say we the people of India give ourselves and others liberty, life, equality of status, justice social, political, economics — all wonderful things. So that's the progressive part. There's the aspiration, that's the goal we strive for. But then, to implement those, we have Part Three of the Constitution where certain fundamental rights are given: Article 14, that nobody shall be denied the equal protection of laws or rule of laws; or Article 19, where freedom of speech and other rights are guaranteed; Article 21, to live with human dignity, and nobody can be deprived of his life or personal liberty without due process of law. So all those wonderful things are there. That's Part Three of the Constitution. That part I will call progressive part, and we welcome that.

But then there is a bigger part than that, that I call authoritarian part, and that is where distribution of power in real sense is distributed between the union and the states and between the three wings of the government. And their interesting thing is that the power is distributed dominantly in the favor of the government and not so much in the favor of citizens. In fact, funny thing is, when you practice the law, as a student you hear about this fundamental rights, wonderful rights of equality — everybody is equal before the law and everybody should be treated like that. But in reality, when you see in the courts, in day-to-day dealing with the police, in day-to-day dealing with the bureaucrats in government offices, what do you see? That all these wonderful fundamental rights are forgotten. So much so that anybody dealing with the police, for example, will realize that it does not inspire confidence. Of course there are honest officers, of course there are courageous officers, of course there are persons like our President CP Singh who came out with lot of creative, constructive ideas, but they are rare and few. Most of the officers have lot of authorities, and they exercise it sometimes not for the purpose for which it is given but for their private purposes.

So this authoritative side, where for example in lower courts, is not the Constitution; it is a CrPC, Criminal Procedure Code, it's a Indian Penal Code 1872, hardly updated. All those procedures apply where fundamental rights are not adequately protected, and we see that so much work is there with the government and with the courts that it's not possible for the government to really have a good control over their functionaries.

So now what should we do? Now one thing is, when there are serious contradictions, then we should try to resolve those contradictions at the highest level. It means the structure of the government should be made more conducive to democracy and democratic ethos. For example, when Mahatma Gandhi talked about democracy, he talked about that democracy means ability to shape the decisions that affect your life. It means you should have the participation in the decision making process. But do we have that? In so many you got beauty the next of the people, and there is hardly any participatory democracy. So there we need to really work very hard as to what kind of safeguards are required so that on the one hand requirement of the state for the purpose of the security and for the purpose of maintaining law and order, for the purpose of defending the country against aggressor, those rights are protected, but at the same time citizens have fairness of the procedure, citizens are treated with dignity and honor.

Let me give you an example. When you go to a five star, security concerns are also there. A guard at a five star will do first salutation, namaste, and then he will, you know, do the checking, and he will fold his hands and he will let you go. Now here security is important, but how does he do that? He does that by showing the respect. So the demands of security and law and order are satisfied, but at the same time human dignity and respect is also protected. Can you say the same thing about the ordinary police people dealing with you on the road? Can you? Whether the dealing of the common man by the police is that respectful and dignified? Though the goals are the same — maintaining security; five star is also maintaining security — but day-to-day civil servant is not infused, because motivations are different, the briefs are different. A security guard is told that since we are having this business, we want to serve our customers and we want to make them happy, so make sure that you do not offend them. On the contrary, civil servant consider as if they are the government, as if people owe an allegiance.

During British period that was understood. I have studied in Oxford, where they teach, and what they teach here, there's a tremendous difference. In 1835, when Lord Macaulay started the education minute, and the original minutes are in the Bodleian Library of Oxford, I had the privilege of reading them, and see what kind of attitude he was having when he started English education in India. He was thinking very low of Indians and he was thinking very high of Western culture, particularly of English culture. He said, now the question comes what kind of education we should provide to natives. Of course their own literature is useless. A good shelf in a library, European library, contains more wisdom than the entire wisdom of Arabs and Hindus literature put together. What kind of thinking it was? England has only shined itself in last 500 years. India by the contrast has a rich history, like China, of thousands and thousands of years. But that is the kind of education to create intermediary, as Macaulay put it, between we the rulers and millions whom we rule. So if the very fundamental of your education is make you slave, to exercise power over you, what kind of citizens we would be creating, and what kind of civil servant, what kind of attitude they would be having?

Indian Civil Service was created for the purpose of maintaining British Empire, what they call steel frame. They were not infused with the ethos of serving the people. But the same services will be kept. It was a necessity, because in 1947 there was a partition, there were other challenges and all that, and managing such a vast country was difficult. But there is no reason why we should continue with those ethos. Either we should evolve them through judicial interpretation, as Supreme Court has done in Maneka Gandhi's case, for example. Supreme Court in 1978 said every action of the government must be fair, reasonable and just, and if it is not fair, is never unjust, then you can always challenge it as a violation of your fundamental right. Certain guidelines have been issued to the government also. So either through judicial interpretation we can humanize these principles, as Honourable Justice Krishna Iyer used to say, that old order but new meaning, old letters for new spirit — either we can do that, or we should change those.

Question is, who are interested in change? Who are the stakeholders for change and who are the stakeholders for status quo? No, politicians are not interested in change, because after English were gone, they are enjoying the same power. Once they are in power, they use police and others for their own benefit. Why they would be changing? Why they would be making the police humane and much more sensitive towards fundamental rights? So they have no incentive or motive or reason. Bureaucrats themselves have no reason why they would be giving up their power, and they can utilize it for their own benefit. So they are not the stakeholder for change. Stakeholders for change are those who are on the other side, who are the sufferer at the hands of these powerful people. And for that it's important that NGOs like NISSMAT and others should come out and say that look, while we are very respectful of Indian Constitution, while we are patriotic people, while we have a lot of love for our motherland, but at the same time we would also like that the ethos of the Constitution given in the preamble, in Part Three of the Constitution — that all are equal, all have right to equality, all have right to dignity — all are taken into consideration.

So now, stakeholders on the one hand of the status quo, and stakeholders on the other side of the equation, those who want that Indian government should be really run inspired by the principles which inspired our freedom fighters. Otherwise the very purpose of winning the freedom will be defeated, because it's not a question of transfer of power from British to brown people; it's a question of transfer of the mindset from authoritarian mindset to the democratic mindset. And that is precisely what we should infuse. If we do that, then civil servants will not be the masters, they would be really the servant. But asking civil servant to be servant is asking too much, because people do not try very hard to become civil servants to be just merely the servant; they want, of course, powerful position. So I would say, I will not go that far, they should be servant. I will say they should be — they should be partners, not the master. They should be partners in the progressive agenda. They should be helping in co-creating the goals.

Now it's very important, the word co-creating goals. On the one hand there is an authoritarian style where you decide this is the right policy and others should follow, and there is a democratic way by which you co-create. You invite those people who are affected by your decision as to what are the situations, what can be done, what do you think, in what way things should be run. And that kind of co-creation with the government and the people, particularly which is done in all democratic countries like US, Europe — that kind of a culture we should have it here.

Plato, the famous philosopher, once said that a student should be free even when he's a student; otherwise it will not be an education of a free man. Same thing applies here. We should be free even when government servants exercise their power, because every power is given for a purpose. Every power is to be exercised in a reasonable, just and fair manner. There they should consider themselves as a partner to create greater India, in which on the one hand government becomes a facilitator and not as the frustrator of the aspiration and goals of the people. In the end I would say what Abraham Lincoln said, and the quote I have given: Abraham Lincoln said that I would not like to be a slave, so I would not like to be a master either. Because once you want to be master, somebody would be your master — master and servant — but the equal contributors, so that we can achieve the higher goals and so that we can bring out the best in ourselves and best in others. So with these basic observations, I would very much like these distinguished people to interact and to ask whatever questions they would like, so that we can continue the discussion in a much more meaningful manner. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. What a wonderful talk. I begin by asking my father the first question. It is always believed that there is a nexus between the bureaucrats, the police and the politicians, and this nexus is a very damaging nexus. How do you prevent this nexus from flourishing?

Well, first of all, very good, brilliant question. In fact there is a nexus, and the treatment of all these is that there should be as least secrecy as possible. Secrecy should not be permitted. Sometime in the interest — there is this famous case of Maneka Gandhi of 1978. Her passport was impounded by passport office. She asked why it was impounded. Authority says in public interest it is impounded. She asked, okay, tell me what is that public interest. Answer came, in public interest we can't tell you what is that public interest. So these circular things, where they say it is in the interest of the state, it is in the interest of this, that — instead of that there should be transparency. That's why Right to Information Act has done wonders. Now you can ask for the records, that what was the mind process which was applied by a civil servant to reach certain decision. So when there is a secrecy, there is a corruption, there is a possibility of distorting the process. So one is that we should have as much transparency as possible.

Second, the process should be made much more transparent in the sense that principles of natural justice — that without hearing other side no decisions should be taken, and they should be informed why they were treated the way they were treated. Then there should be all these safeguards. When parliament making the law, they should take, apart from the ruling party, as is a healthy tradition in England from where we have adopted this parliamentary system, taking opposition leaders, eminent citizens and others into account. Bureaucrats, judges, lawyers running the government is not enough. There should be much more participation by those people who are affected by their decisions. So I would be suggesting that it should be much more participating, and there should not be concentration of power, so that people know what politicians are doing, what bureaucrats are doing. So many times these decisions are kept secret. So transparency, access to records, safeguards are some of the ways where it can be done.

Thank you very much. Next question, Dr. John, kindly unmute yourself please. Is treated exactly the same way as a person who is being cultivated. Why is this happening?

Well, the unfortunate aspect is that in India the safeguard against a false case are not there. If somebody is named in a false case, it takes at least six months to bring the reality before the court, because lower courts are so much loaded with work in a routine where you can't bring even the reality. So this is, and after that, supposing if a person is innocent, why have you wasted so many years? Why have you ruined the career? So certain safeguard, that one should not assume a person guilty the moment his name is mentioned in FIR or in complaint. There should be much more due diligence and other safeguards before a person is dubbed, because his reputation is also maligned. So some safeguards are needed. Our police have been given too much power. These are the power needed to keep British Empire. In a free democracy such kind of powers should not be tolerated. Supreme Court has given guidelines, but more need to be done on those.

The next question. A gentleman is in one ministry, he catches the tail of a politician, he goes to the next ministry, so he has very limited expertise in the field that he is operating in. Second aspect is the accountability and responsibility. I'll give you cases and points. I'm an ex-army chap, and our troops are deployed in the forward area. About 99 percent of the troops stop in the rural areas. We have a lot of problems. We approach the state administration or the district administration whether to resolve the problem of those people. There is no response from them whatsoever. Now with this mobile phones coming into being, it further exaggerates the tension in a man, and there could be problems with that. I feel that there is a requirement to assess these gentlemen over a period of time. A child who comes as a bureaucrat, he knows he will retire minimum as an additional secretary, if not a secretary. There is no check on him throughout his service. I feel there's accountability and responsibility factor is an important test.

Yeah, General, you have highlighted the problems we are facing. Accountability, of course, but at the same time we have to make sure that these people have not only sufficient skills but subsequent attitude. Because what happens, that all over India these civil servants are there, but their training is exactly the same it was during British period, so that attitude has not changed. And not only that, most importantly, why politicians are given so much power? Why government is in every field? Government should be restricted, limited in few areas. We really, we elect our people, and we elect like a Frankenstein which becomes more powerful than it was intended to be. Why? Why everything, regularly power — for example, in America, belong to people, not to state. In India, like British constitution, residuary power, means power which are not defined, always belong to government. Why land always belong to government? Why? So all these authoritarian thing by which British used to control India must go, and we need to reduce our constitution in the democratic spirit, where the role of politician, role of those who get elected, are limited, rather than they are my part of everything, and they think once they are elected then they are lord unto themselves. Exactly.

May I say something on this, sir? Please, say. Politicians — the politics is such that it is vote bank politics, based on the capability of the politician who's coming into power. Earlier these gentlemen who came into politics had very limited knowledge, even in the state governments. Now you see, the number of politicians is all based on vote bank politics. That is how the power has generated into the bureaucrats, because they know that they can rule over the politicians in the states. Am I right, sir?

Absolutely, absolutely. And these kind of a popular politics — a friend of mine who was in a very high position in England said that, Surat, India is a vast, rich country but poorly managed. The masters, whom you call politician, have mastered only one skill, the skill of winning the elections. That's the only skill they have mastered. So why in our constitution so much power should be given to elected representatives? Because so many areas should not belong to government; they should belong to citizens. I am always for a factory and small government, not government in everything. And there are some 53 licensing required if you want to start a school, and there is no guarantee even after these 53 licenses, if unfortunately fire in the school, you'll be protected. So all these overpower must go, and the shape of the government should be lean and simple, not too much power.

Thank you very much. So there's another question that's been asked. Several servants get caught in political crossfire. How can you avoid this?

Oh well, politicians and civil servants somehow have understood that if a politician is protecting a civil servant and if a civil servant is serving a politician, they would protect each other. Now in that sense, that's why I said that why so much power to transfer and all those are given to politicians? There should be independent commissions which should decide whether officer should be transferred or not, not the politician. Politician should be given certain important tasks. But if in else for everything, if licensing they are, if land acquisition is there, big businesses, biggest public sectors are there, run by civil servants and then headed by politicians. So all this power structure need to be re-examined, that what a progressive, young, dynamic India, which contains 67 percent of the people between the age of 15 and 45, a young India, how that should be really governing itself — those questions need to be asked. Captain Ahluwalia.

You see, there was one case, sir, which you may recall, of the gold retreat, Mr. Harish Chandra Gupta, who was convicted for taking bribes, and he was considered to be one of the most honest officers in the government at that time, and he was implicated just because he did not take bribe, and there were people who wanted to take a bribe and they got him cornered so that he would not see daylight. How do you prevent such things?

Well, the very fact that, see, being a lawyer I had the dubious distinction of defending the so-called corrupt politicians, but on a serious note, see, when out of ten nine are correct and you are alone, then unfortunately, what George Bernard Shaw said, that before you tell your child that honesty is the best policy, make the world honest first.

The president wants to ask, Mr. CP Singh. Yeah, you are asking for a question and asking me to wind up? No, no, the question that you wanted to ask. And the question — I mean, I'll not go to the winding up, but how beautifully and lucidly doctor explained that. But I like to mention one point which is very important, and Dr. Singh will agree with. Most of the so-called authoritarian powers, as mentioned, progressive versus authoritarian — their authority is vested, is given to the bureaucrats under some law, and that is not to give that authority for misuse. That authority even is used without any ambivalence, without considering between the two things, that I am a professional, I should do like that, but I am under the politician, I should do that. So when that ambivalence comes, then that authoritarian rules are authorized, authoritarian acts which are available there. So this is the one point, that the bureaucrat is ambivalent whether he should be absolutely professional and do as per law, or he should do as well as a particular person. This is one point.

Second, then the entire penal system, right from point one, revolves around now the discretionary powers which are vested in a particular police officer or police station. That is the pain of it, that discretionary powers — say, arrest if we suspect, this is, if he has got this, arrest. So when you have discretionary power, more discretionary power, you will misuse that, and that misuse leads to the government servants becoming masters, that misuse of their discretion. Over this, again, their discretion power have to be there, because without that you are not able to curb the goondaism. My submission is that we have made lot of amendments in the law, in various laws, from time to time, yet we are not able to have some such law where we are able to curb that discretion, and the law is provided if they misuse the power, but so long the circumstances within remaining the boundaries, that is yet not believable. One act, as it says, Right to Information, has proved such a deterrent. If similar such acts, with zealots, legal luminaries like Dr. Surat Singh — if one such act is enacted where these discretionary powers are controlled in some manner — I mean, I'm not able to suggest off the cuff what should be done, but I am very sure it will lead to a lot of sobriety and not use of autocratic power. Why after 74 years of independence, why our legal luminaries have not been able to give some idea of reforms in such systems, reform in the form of a law? We are crying all the time, yes, I am also, but how do you describe it, that there should be this discretionary power to the extent that they are to use, they have to think of that and use it. Now the thinking here, that this discretionary power which is given, is his mind competent to use the essence of an impartial manner, only for the benefit of society? My only submission is the legal luminaries should give a thought to it. After 74 years still we are not able to — I will talk in terms of reforms — they haven't got no reform. We have given a lot of reports after reports in the police reform system, yet they are catching dust. No state of the country has gone into those reform. Even the Supreme Court rulings and others on bringing about some reform in the police system — that there should be proper jurisdiction, proper period of their appointment for a DG, transfers — all these are given in one of the leading cases known as Prakash Singh, but Supreme Court has not been able to get it implemented, because law and order is the state subject. We went again and again; the reply was that we can only give directions. And you just say, of course we said that, this is the question, you know, not going by the course. Why don't you hold them? They say it doesn't exist. There has to be something very thoughtful process; we should bring about these reforms. Thank you.

There's one question from — you're here, so that you, and today is the opportunity for us to clarify some of the things about judicial system in this country. It comes from your mention about the judicial system itself. My question, the first part of the question is, we all know that judicial process takes so long to give the verdict in the cases, and sometimes it may not be only be giving a verdict and not actually provide justice. Is there a serious proposal in our country to make judicial reforms for the sake of serving the people of this country and practitioners? Second part was about also about the law, and since the IPC, CrPC, the summary of evidence were actually created by the British minds and for the so-called, as you mentioned, crowd control, is there also some effort, or do you think there is a need to make amendments to these three laws?

Sir, as far as judicial reform is concerned, because he now enjoys so much power, so judicial accountability and transparency is very important, particularly after collegium system. But the government came out — video has gone off, can you switch on your video please? Okay, how do I do that? Just one moment, just one moment please. Yeah, yeah, am I there? No, it's still not there. Can — now you're there. One moment please. Is it audible now? You are audible, sir. Okay, can you hear me? Yes.

So their judicial commission was appointed by the judiciary. Supreme Court found out that the remedy was worse than the disease and they struck it down. Similarly, in case of other old laws like IPC, CrPC, there is no serious movement to reform them. And in fact, one thing I wonder all the time, because I am a Supreme Court lawyer, and guarantees are totally ignored in the lower court, and they are so much guided by CrPC, their Criminal Procedure Code, which is only a procedure. Procedure cannot override the substantive law and constitution, or the basic law of the land. In the hierarchy of norms, constitution is at the top, but if you make a constitutional argument in the trial court, you will be wondering whether this person is a new one. There are so much portability that just told CrPC and IPC that judges are not even willing to look at these things, whereas Article 13 of the constitution very clearly says that if there is any old law or new law is created which is inconsistent, which is against the constitutional law of fundamental rights, to the extent of inconsistency that law is bad, and we do that all the time.

So the enormous thinking has been done, and there I bring the issue of stakeholders who want the change. Now a police officer, an essential, will not like to have the change that discretionary power should be curtailed, as President CP rightly pointed out, but essential will not do that. Who rules the rules in civil matters will not say my power should be reduced. No politician will not say power should be reduced, because he hoped to win and utilize this power. Those who are saying are some NGOs or marginal people, those who do not access high power. So interestingly enough, unless we really create an environment where common citizens have said enough of this — now more than 75 years have passed, we should have our own constitution, and now the constitution given by English, I remind you, more than 50 percent provisions of Indian constitution are bodily lifted from Government of India Act 1935. Maybe 1947 that was needed, not today. So we should create that kind of a climate where our fundamental rights are not said rhetorically, but they are available to us in a realistic manner. For that purpose, one example was right to information. Second is, what is stopping — there should be video recording of investigation of the police, so that some exercise is there whether they are exercising the third degree method or not. In government officers also, now cameras and others are there. So there are ways. Now social media is another one by which we can raise the awareness against those people who are corrupt.

So they are based, but then we need to reduce the power of the government. Because now, whether — I am not talking about any government — but for example, the power of CBI, this is of investigation, not to serve the political masters; power of ED, Enforcement Department, other powers. Now we can't terrorize citizens by using those powers. Why those power are not under some independent agency like the Supreme Court, instead of politician? Because whether it's one party or the other, once power is given, they are likely to abuse it, because everybody wants to preserve the power once they are in power, and there is no exception in either party. So are Indian citizens not sufficiently having sound sense how things work? I mean, we should focus on those things which should take us forward and not backward, but I don't know what is media, for his own sake, is utilizing space in a self-serving manner. So all these things. So there we need to raise an awareness that if the public space in India is good, it would be good for everybody, but if the public space in India is corrupt, it will affect everybody, whether you today realize it or not.

Okay, Dr. Singh, thank you so much. We run out of time now. May I hand the proceedings back to the president to wind up this session?

Thanks indeed. I only like to first of all briefly delineate what Dr. Surat Singh has pointed out — beautiful and lucid explanation between rhetoric and reality, what actually is happening and what we want. Just in that rhetoric, and that he has given beautiful ideas to me; sometime probably I'll have the next subject for my seminar on something in these words, rhetoric and reality. He started to trace the history from the Government of India Act, which was initially actually enacted by the British government for certain purposes. I mean, we just use the word crowd control; this was not actually specifically for — so that is very, so that this powers can be used to the advantage of the British government. Then in very fine words Dr. Singh has pointed out from the constitution, progressive versus authoritarian, very nice word. But sir, I have already mentioned and again mention, the constitution is not that much authoritarian as the laws which gives some powers, authority. Constitution has its own around it, but as you rightly said, whatever it is there, we try to tend to use authoritarian rather than the progressive.

Now as I mentioned earlier, history is replete, as far as our country is concerned, between some odd man being in — I mean, they consider the entire system as a corrupt system, as an authoritarian system, and some odd man which comes in this bureaucracy, a man in east of us, he is not able to survive in these environments. So therefore the entire environment has to be looked into, so that the odd man who really has the guts, who has the spine, and then if they give real leadership, he is not victimized. Then there is — earlier a lot of paperwork was, and this paperwork gave a beautiful handle to the corrupt people to prolong this as much as possible, and subsequent to that, after the process, after the charge sheet, again there's a problem sort of, you know, judicial — one case of one date, another date at all. So this prolonged system which is there, which is sort of, you know, encouraging the authoritarian rule, and I am hopeful that with digitalization probably to some extent this sort of paperwork can be reduced and we may get some environment where we are able to walk in a non-authoritarian way.

However, I still feel that there has to be some other act, like the Right to Information Act. I mean, I'm not able to offhand, off the cuff, suggest what should be. I am very sure that when person like Dr. Surat Singh — we have had here also we have some other very nice, very illustrious system — if they sit down and put their hands in, they may be able to give some such system where they're able to have curb over these powers. Next, that this is a question of using it by the state or by the center, because the bureaucratic system is mostly diverted to the state — police, even IAS; the cadre controlling authority is no doubt the center, but they are managed, governed by the state. How you want to bring about this system? I don't advocate that you purely come under the unitary system or the center; I also know that, okay, that should be only with the state. So you have to devise some way where they're able to have a sigh of relief both from the union government as well, because now it is used this side and that side.

And we know one point more. Sedition has been in operation for years; it's not a new thing. Now a toolkit designed by Disha, which you know, the recent judgment about six months, where she was hauled up on top for sedition, for a toolkit having been designed. Other side, the sedition is actually to a terrorist, who indulges in terrorism. So the Supreme Court is now bringing in such a nice information — all sedition cases should be where the hell till Supreme Court gives it. Very hopeful and optimistic in this respect so far I have been, that I'm sure that intellectuals, lawyers, bureaucrats, and the space which is provided to us, just like this particular webinar we are conducting — it is a discussion, it activates us, it activates every person who is sitting there, so they get together sometimes, and the reforms they do come, and we are able to give a system which is called raj dharma, as we use so often. When you say, you know, we want to have that sort of institution, requires to be established gradually, but initiation process should start.

With these words, I once again very, very emphatically want to say that we are truly, we are really enlightened and obliged to doctor that he has given us such a beautiful talk, which has set our minds into motion to think further on this, and also to the delegates who have asked very scintillating questions. With these words, I thank everyone for this. Next, please give me the next banner for the next. Yes, our next interactive session is going to be increasing threats due to illegal incursions by drones and UAVs. So the recent nuisance of drones in various places, and also to some extent the use of UAVs in the recent conflict or war between Russia and Ukraine, has inspired me to suggest this subject. It also concerns the defense forces and all of us. So kindly make it convenient to be with us on third June, Friday, from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. to listen to one of the learned speakers, who has himself probably responsible of either designing drones or having suffered the terrorist act of the drones. So increasing threats due to illegal incursions by drones and UAVs is our subject on third June, and I request all the delegates to make a note in their diary and be with us. With these words, I thank everyone who has come here and attended this session. Thank you very much.

And Dr. Surat Singh, thank you very much for your eloquent sort of talk today. And for the information of everyone, when Dr. Barack Obama was made president, Dr. Surat Singh was there to attend both the ceremonies of both the times he was made the president. He was one of the Indians invited by Barack Obama specifically. And with these, thank you very much, sir. Thank you, thank you everybody, sir. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Thanks, Deepak.