Israel – Sudan Issue

Historical Background

• Sudan, which was technically at war with Israel since its foundation in 1948, has now become the third country to forge diplomatic relations with it, in recent times.
• Recently, in a deal brokered by the USA, Sudan and Israel have agreed to normalise relations to end decades of hostility.
• Earlier, the USA brokered diplomatic pacts between Israel and the UAE and Bahrain as well, to normalise their relations.

Implications:

USA

• Sudan was added to the USA Black list in 1993 after it was accused of harbouring groups such as Hezbollah and Palestinian militant outfits which the USA deems as terrorists.
• As a result, Sudan was cut off from the global economy and was starved of foreign investment which faced another blow in 2011 when South Sudan was formed taking away its major oil resources.
• The deal follows the USA’s conditional agreement to remove Sudan from its blacklist of countries accused of sponsoring terrorism.
• This deal would deepen Sudan’s engagement with the West.
• With its name removed from the list, Sudan will no longer stay deprived of foreign investments.
• Under the deal, Sudan has agreed to pay USD 335 million in compensation to victims of the Al-Qaeda bombings of USA embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.

Israel

• After the six-day war of 1967 war, Arab powers met in Khartoum (Sudan’s capital) to pledge three “noes” viz. no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel. Therefore, the deal holds symbolic significance for Israel.
• It boosts Israel’s motive which has made it a priority to forge ties with formerly hostile countries in Africa and the Arab world in the absence of any progress with the Palestinians.
• Unlike the UAE and Bahrain, which have never fought with Israel, Sudan sent forces to fight in the war around Israel’s creation in 1948 and during the war of 1967. In the 1970s, Israel backed Sudanese insurgents fighting the Khartoum government.
• With this agreement, Israel will complete the creation of a safety cordon in the Red Sea, which currently includes Egypt, Jordan, South Sudan and Saudi Arabia.
• The deal is also aimed at unifying Arab countries against their common adversary, Iran.
• Though Sudan has been largely marginal to Middle Eastern politics in recent decades, the normalisation has significant symbolic value.

Model Code of Conduct: MP CM remark on a woman Case Study

Recently, the Election Commission (EC) has found former Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister’s remark on a woman politician violative of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC).

What is a Model Code of Conduct?

• The MCC is a set of guidelines issued by the EC to regulate political parties and candidates prior to elections.
• It helps EC in keeping with the mandate it has been given under Article 324 of the Constitution, which gives it the power to supervise and conduct free and fair elections to the Parliament and State Legislatures.
• The MCC is operational from the date on which the election schedule is announced until the date of result announcement.
• The MCC does not have any statutory backing but is strictly enforced by the Election Commission.
• Certain provisions of the MCC are enforced through invoking provisions in other statutes like Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and RPA, 1951.

Historical Background

• The origins of the MCC lie in the Assembly elections of Kerala in 1960, when the State administration prepared a ‘Code of Conduct’ for political actors.
• Subsequently, in the Lok Sabha elections in 1962, the ECI circulated the code to all recognised political parties and State governments and it was wholeheartedly followed.
• It was in 1991 after repeated flouting of the election norms and continued corruption, the EC decided to enforce the MCC more strictly.

Components of Model Code of Conduct

• General Conduct: Criticism of political parties must be limited to their policies and programmes, past record and work. Activities such as using caste and communal feelings to secure votes, criticising candidates on the basis of unverified reports, bribing or intimidation of voters, etc. are prohibited.
• Processions: If two or more candidates plan processions along the same route, organisers must establish a contact in advance to ensure that the processions do not clash. Carrying and burning effigies representing members of other political parties is not allowed.
• Polling Day: All authorised party workers at polling booths should be given suitable badges or identity cards. Identity slips supplied by them to voters shall be on plain (white) paper and shall not contain any symbol, name of the candidate or the name of the party.
• Polling Booths: Only voters, and those with a valid pass from the EC are allowed to enter polling booths.
• Meetings: Parties must inform the local police authorities of the venue and time of any meeting in time to enable the police to make adequate security arrangements.
• Observers: The EC will appoint observers to whom any candidates may report problems regarding the conduct of the election.
• Party in power: The MCC incorporated certain restrictions in 1979, regulating the conduct of the party in power.

1. Ministers must not combine official visits with election work or use official machinery for the same.
2. The party must avoid advertising at the cost of the public exchequer or using official mass media for publicity on achievements to improve chances of victory in the elections.
3. Ministers and other authorities must not announce any financial grants, or promise any construction of roads, provision of drinking water, etc.
4. Other parties must be allowed to use public spaces and rest houses and these must not be monopolised by the party in power.

• Election manifestos: Added in 2013, these guidelines prohibit parties from making promises that exert an undue influence on voters, and suggest that manifestos also indicate the means to achieve promises.

Should MCC be legally binding?

• In 2013, the Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, recommended making the MCC legally binding and recommended that the MCC be made a part of the RPA 1951.
• However, the EC argues against making it legally binding.
• According to it, elections must be completed within a relatively short time or close to 45 days and judicial proceedings typically take longer, therefore it is not feasible to make it enforceable by law.

Gujarat High Court 1^st to Live Stream Court Proceedings on Youtube

• The High Court allowed the open court proceedings through the video conferencing, except the proceedings to be conducted in camera.
• In camera means in private chambers of a judge, with the press and public excluded.
• It observed that the initiative of live telecast is on an experimental basis and the aspect of continuing with or adapting the modality of live court proceedings will be decided based on the outcome of this trial.
• The Supreme Court in Swapnil Tripathi v Supreme Court of India (2018) has ruled in favour of opening up the apex court through live-streaming.
• It held that the live streaming proceedings is part of the right to access justice under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• However, the judgment has remained unimplemented.
• The e-Court Mission Mode Project was conceptualized with a vision to transform the Indian Judiciary by ICT enablement of Courts.
• The move has been welcomed by lawyers, law students and the public at large besides litigants, being seen as a major measure towards transparency in judicial proceedings.
• Also, in the model video conferencing rules as prescribed by the e-Committee of the Supreme Court, it has been provided that the public will be allowed to view the hearing conducted through video conferencing.

Benefits of Live Streaming

• A live stream would help litigants follow the proceedings in their case and also assess their lawyers’ performance. People from far-flung States such as Tamil Nadu and Kerala do not have to travel all the way to the national capital for a day’s hearing.
• It would keep a check on lawyers’ conduct inside the courtrooms. With the entire country watching them, there would be fewer interruptions, raised voices and adjournments from the lawyers.
• Live-streaming will bring transparency and access to justice.

Issues Involved

• The live streaming of the Courts are susceptible to abuses.
• It can involve national security concerns and can amount to a violation of the fundamental right to privacy in matrimonial disputes and rape cases.
• The unauthorised reproduction of the live streaming videos is another cause for concern as its regulation will be very difficult at the government’s end.
• Concerns have also been raised about the commercial aspect of the whole issue. The agreements with broadcasters should be on a non-commercial basis. No one should profit from the arrangement.
• Infrastructure, specially internet connectivity is also the biggest challenge in implementing the live proceedings of Courts.

In- House Procedure Against Judges of Higher Judiciary

What is in the News?

• Recently, in a letter to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister has accused the Supreme Court judge, Justice N.V. Ramana and some judges of Andhra Pradesh (AP) High Court of misconduct, corruption and political bias.
• The allegation against the judges is unprecedented since it has been made publicly.

What are the Issues Involved?

• The Constitution of India protects the independence of judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court by making them removable only through a process of impeachment. Article 121 and 211 expressly bars the Parliament and State Legislatures from discussing the misconduct of judges.
• Article 121 states that no discussions shall take place in Parliament with respect to the conduct of any judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court in the discharge of his duties except upon a motion for the removal of the judge.
• Article 211 says that no discussion shall take place in the legislature of a state with respect to the conduct of any judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court in the discharge of his duties.
• However, the AP CM has not made the allegations against the judges in the legislative assembly, and therefore, the bar under Article 211 is not attracted.
• The chief minister of a state can make such allegations by circumventing the bar under Article 211, as the constitution does not envisage such a possibility.
• However, generally such allegations against judges are not made publicly, since it may cast aspersion on the credibility of the judiciary.
• Since, AP CM has made the allegations publicly, such an act may invite action for contempt of court.

Action in Cases of Misconduct of Judges:

• A judge can be removed from office on grounds of ‘proved misbehaviour or incapacity’.
• However, not all forms of misbehaviour will warrant removal. There could be other kinds of impropriety too.
• There are times when serious complaints of misconduct are made and CJI is called upon to examine them. Since 1997, judges have adopted an ‘in-house procedure’ for inquiring into such charges.

What is the In-House Procedure:

• Under the in-house procedure, when a complaint is received against a High Court judge, the CJI should decide if the issue is frivolous or serious.
• If a deeper probe is considered necessary, both the complaint and the judge’s response, along with the High Court’s Chief Justice’s comments, are recorded for further action.
• If deemed necessary, CJI can also form a three-member committee to hold an inquiry into the matter.
• The committee should have two Chief Justices from other High Courts and one High Court judge.
• The inquiry it holds is of the nature of a fact-finding mission and is not a formal judicial inquiry involving examination of witnesses. The judge concerned is entitled to appear before it.
• If the committee finds substance in the charges, it can give two kinds of recommendations. One, that the misconduct is serious enough to require removal from office, or that it is not serious enough to warrant removal.
• If the misconduct involves removal of a judge, the judge concerned will be urged to resign or seek voluntary retirement.
• If the judge is unwilling to quit, the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned would be asked to withdraw judicial work from him.
• The President and the Prime Minister will be informed of the situation, clearing the way for Parliament to begin the process of removal.
• If the misconduct does not warrant removal, the judge would be advised accordingly.
• Procedure in Case of Chief Justice of High Court/ Judge of Supreme Court:
• If the case is against a High Court’s Chief Justice, the same procedure is followed as that of a judge of the High Court, but the probe committee comprises a Supreme Court judge and two Chief Justices.
• If a Supreme Court judge faces such a charge, the in-house panel will comprise three Supreme Court judges.
• Also, the in-house procedure does not give any separate provision to deal with complaints against the Chief Justice of India.

Way Forward

• Separation of powers between legislative, executive and judiciary has been regarded as a basic feature of our constitution in Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala, 1973.
• The constitution does not envisage supremacy of any of the three organs of the state. But the functioning of all the three organs is controlled by the constitution.
• Wherever interaction and deliberations among the three organs have been envisaged, a delicate balance and mutual respect are contemplated.