There are set of principles in democracy which are called justified in the general public interest and what are justified in the public interest : This aspect if given to executive it would be interpreted its their own way or its own end : The interference of judiciary is a must for better democracy and Role of judiciary always remained with justice: we are very much proud of judiciary when timely quashes the tyranny of executive but democrates should be vigilant about their rights and also have a Vigilence look to place the material before judiciary for proper adjudication : There are number of incidents when wrong prejudial ordinances passes and after making public enlightment are quashed by judiciary similarly laws are interpreted and if found against its object that are quashed or deleted from our legislation : The role of judiciary is no doubt very pious and it’s like God when our voice reaches for seeking shelter :The observance of judiciary upon other wings of constitution is very much liked by democrates : Justice can’t be one sided because it has logical base and gives strength to democracy : Democratic constitution gives some autonomy in their workings : Now a days much hue and cry placed with regard to interference in reserve bank of india Act particualarly in sec 7 for having capital in the hands of RBI it has been said that ratio of fund should be enlarged with govt by transferring fund so as to making financial institutions powerful : it’s a policy matter and it requires direction from Judiciary: RBI is having status through statute and if statute don’t say the deciding factor would be our judicial decisions or an amendment in law would be a second alternative : It
might be that it’s essential for our growth in this financial crisis and it might be that banks become a handy tool for playing game by executive : if interference of govt is for the betterment of public it
should be proved through logical base :it may be that hue and cry is through opposite party and party power would like in the interest of public but when we do against the provisions we must clearify either from judiciary or an amendment through parliament can have better impact or better running upon democracy: Govt is supreme and it’s not necessary to have consultation with RBI governor : Govt can issue directions in the interest of general public :In India this is a central Bank and what extent it’s role should be independent to the govt :In USA the Fed is an independent agency : it’s accountability with public and govt also The Fed does not receive funding through congressional budgetary process and audit wing also have independent outsider auditor : The Bank of England is also answerable to public and parliament : When law is not clear then who would be responsible : In this situation who would decide accountability to public : Democratic institutions where central Bank has a independent role and accountability to public and govt both it shows that in whole accountability lies with govt and public both : that is people who are in power through their govt and also people who are in opposition : this is a like a issue of total public not differentiating who are in majority or not in majority thus this issue would be heard and decided by peoples in whole : This is a matter of pros and cons and protection of interest of all citizens would be a better idea : It may be when law is silent : The majority party may interpret in their own way and people of opposite become helpless : Judiciary would be armed when there is a law or judicial precedent: The role of supremacy now goes to judiciary keeping in view democracy and independent role of central Bank
A
might be that it’s essential for our growth in this financial crisis and it might be that banks become a handy tool for playing game by executive : if interference of govt is for the betterment of public it
should be proved through logical base :it may be that hue and cry is through opposite party and party power would like in the interest of public but when we do against the provisions we must clearify either from judiciary or an amendment through parliament can have better impact or better running upon democracy: Govt is supreme and it’s not necessary to have consultation with RBI governor : Govt can issue directions in the interest of general public :In India this is a central Bank and what extent it’s role should be independent to the govt :In USA the Fed is an independent agency : it’s accountability with public and govt also The Fed does not receive funding through congressional budgetary process and audit wing also have independent outsider auditor : The Bank of England is also answerable to public and parliament : When law is not clear then who would be responsible : In this situation who would decide accountability to public : Democratic institutions where central Bank has a independent role and accountability to public and govt both it shows that in whole accountability lies with govt and public both : that is people who are in power through their govt and also people who are in opposition : this is a like a issue of total public not differentiating who are in majority or not in majority thus this issue would be heard and decided by peoples in whole : This is a matter of pros and cons and protection of interest of all citizens would be a better idea : It may be when law is silent : The majority party may interpret in their own way and people of opposite become helpless : Judiciary would be armed when there is a law or judicial precedent: The role of supremacy now goes to judiciary keeping in view democracy and independent role of central Bank
A
No comments:
Post a Comment