Tuesday, June 30, 2026

My Proposal for an Integrated National High-Speed Rail (HSR) Grid

"Transportation infrastructure does more than move people—it shapes economies, creates opportunities, connects cultures, and defines the future of nations."

Introduction

India stands at a defining moment in its transportation history. As one of the world's fastest-growing economies and home to more than 1.4 billion people, the country is investing heavily in world-class infrastructure. The introduction of High-Speed Rail (HSR), popularly known as Bullet Train technology, represents one of the most significant milestones in India's modern transportation journey.

On 19 February 2026, I had the privilege of submitting a concept proposal to the Honorable Prime Minister of India titled:

"Integrated National High-Speed Rail (HSR) Grid" Click here to view the proposal in PDF

This proposal is not an official government plan, nor is it intended to replace the work of transportation planners, railway engineers, economists, or policymakers. Instead, it is my personal vision for how India could develop its High-Speed Rail system over the coming decades as a single integrated national network, rather than a collection of independent corridors.

My hope is simple: If India is going to invest in High-Speed Rail for the next fifty years, every new corridor should strengthen the entire network.

Where This Vision Began

Several years ago, after moving to the United States, I became fascinated by one of the greatest engineering achievements of the twentieth century—the U.S. Interstate Highway System.

Travelling across America, one quickly notices something remarkable. Every highway is connected. They are not isolated roads linking only two cities. Instead, they form a nationwide transportation grid that allows people and goods to move efficiently across the country.

That experience inspired an important question:

Why shouldn't India build its future High-Speed Rail network in the same way?

Initially, my vision was even broader. I imagined a 12-lane National Expressway stretching from Kashmir to Kanyakumari, with a four-track High-Speed Rail corridor built within its median. At strategic intervals, East-West transportation corridors would intersect this national spine, encouraging the development of new cities and economic growth corridors across India.

As India had already begun planning High-Speed Rail independently from highways, I refined my concept and focused exclusively on the railway component. That evolved into the proposal I submitted to the Prime Minister.

Why India Needs an Integrated High-Speed Rail Network

India is growing at an extraordinary pace.

Its cities are expanding rapidly.

Domestic aviation is reaching record passenger numbers.

Conventional railways remain among the busiest in the world.

National highways continue to experience increasing congestion.

Over the next fifty years, India's transportation demand will grow dramatically.

The question is not whether India should build High-Speed Rail.

The real question is:

How should India build it?

Many countries began by connecting one city to another.

India has the opportunity to think even bigger.

Instead of constructing isolated corridors, we can develop a national transportation framework where every new line becomes part of one integrated system.

Thinking Beyond Individual Bullet Train Projects

Today's High-Speed Rail planning often focuses on connecting major metropolitan areas.

For example:

City A → City B
City B → City C
City D → City E

Each corridor provides value individually.

However, my proposal asks a different question.

What should India's High-Speed Rail network look like fifty years from now?

Once that answer is known, every new corridor can be planned as another building block of the final national network.

This approach creates a transportation system that becomes stronger every time a new corridor is added.

The Spine and Rib Concept

The central idea behind this proposal is inspired by the human body.

Just as the human skeleton has a backbone (spine) supported by ribs, India's High-Speed Rail system can be organized in a similar way.

The North–South Spine

The Spine forms India's primary transportation backbone.

It carries the highest passenger volumes and connects the country's major population centers from north to south.

Like the backbone of the human body, this corridor supports the entire network.

The East–West Ribs

Intersecting the Spine are multiple East–West corridors.

These "Ribs" connect coastal regions, industrial centers, agricultural belts, ports, and emerging cities to the national backbone.

Rather than serving only their own passengers, every rib continuously feeds traffic into the Spine while distributing passengers throughout the country.

Every new corridor therefore increases the usefulness of every existing corridor.

This is known as the network effect, and it is one of the greatest advantages of an integrated transportation system.

The Proposed National High-Speed Rail Grid Click to view the Map

Unlike conventional proposals that focus on a handful of routes, this concept presents a comprehensive National High-Speed Rail Master Plan.

The proposed network is organized into three major components:

North–South Spine Corridors
East–West Rib Corridors
Strategic Connector and Northeast Corridors

Rather than constructing every corridor simultaneously, the network can be developed in economically viable phases over two to three decades.

Each completed corridor immediately becomes part of the larger national system.

I. North–South Spine Corridors

Primary National Spine (~3,000 km)

The backbone of the proposed network extends from Srinagar to Gangaikondan in Tamil Nadu.

Proposed Route

Srinagar → Jammu → Pathankot → Amritsar → Ludhiana → Chandigarh → New Delhi → Gwalior → New Junction → Nagpur → New Junction → Shamshabad (Hyderabad Region) → New Junction → Anantapur → Bengaluru → Erode → New Junction (near Madurai) → Gangaikondan

This corridor connects India's major administrative, industrial, commercial, and population centers while providing the fastest long-distance travel corridor in the country.

Western Corridor

Mumbai → Surat → Vadodara → Ahmedabad

This corridor, already under development, naturally integrates into the proposed national grid.

Eastern Corridor

Visakhapatnam → Rayagada → Bhawanipatna → Sambalpur → Ranchi → Deoghar → Purnia

This route connects the eastern coast with central and northeastern India while opening new opportunities for economic development.

Central Connector

Ranchi → Varanasi → Lucknow

Providing an important connection between eastern India and the northern spine.

Northeast Link

Kolkata → Purnia

Connecting eastern India with the gateway to Northeast India.

Northwest Link

Rajkot → New Junction → Sanchore → Jodhpur → Hanumangarh → Abohar → Bathinda → Barnala → Ludhiana

Strengthening western India's integration with the national backbone.

Future Expansion

The proposal also recommends future North–South expansion through:

Secondary Spine

Near Thanjavur → Erode → Mysuru → Davanagere → Solapur → Indore → Jaipur → New Delhi

East Coast Corridor

Chennai → Tirupati → Kavali → Amaravati → Kovvur → Visakhapatnam → Bhubaneswar → Balasore → Kolkata

These corridors would improve capacity, redundancy, and regional connectivity.

II. East–West Rib Corridors

The East–West corridors ensure that every major region of India can access the national HSR backbone.

Northern Corridor

Hanumangarh → New Delhi → Lucknow → Patna → Purnia → Siliguri

Central Corridor

Mumbai → Pune → Solapur → Shamshabad (Hyderabad Region) → Amaravati

Southern Corridor

Mangaluru → Mysuru → Bengaluru → Chennai

Central Cross Corridor–1

Rajkot → Vadodara → Indore → New Junction → Ranchi → Kolkata

Central Cross Corridor–2

Surat → New Junction → Nagpur → Raipur → Bhubaneswar

Southern Connections

Thrissur → Coimbatore → Erode → Salem → Tiruvannamalai → Chennai

Kochi → New Junction (near Madurai) → Ramanathapuram

Additional Connectors

Jaisalmer → Jodhpur → Ajmer → Gwalior → Lucknow

Vapi → Nashik → Shirdi → New Junction → Khammam → Kovvur

Future Special Corridors

Ponda → Hubballi → Ballari → Badvel → Kavali

Kollam → Gangaikondan → Ramanathapuram

Together, these corridors create a nationwide grid that reaches every major region rather than concentrating development only around a few metropolitan cities.

III. Northeast Strategic Corridors

India's Northeast deserves to be an integral part of the nation's High-Speed Rail future.

Although the terrain presents engineering challenges, improved connectivity would have enormous economic and strategic value.

The proposal therefore includes dedicated corridors connecting:

Siliguri – Guwahati – Shillong – Silchar – Dharmanagar – Tripura
Aizawl – Churachandpur – Imphal – Kohima – Dimapur – Golaghat – Sivasagar – Dibrugarh – Tinsukia – Namsai – Tezu
Jowai – Hojai – Lumding – Dimapur
Guwahati – Tezpur – Jorhat

Engineering Principles Behind the Proposal

The proposal recommends several planning principles that can improve long-term efficiency.

Four-Track High-Speed Corridors

Rather than limiting major corridors to two tracks, four-track configurations provide:

Express and stopping services operating independently
Higher passenger capacity
Operational redundancy
Easier maintenance
Future high-speed freight capability

Outer Ring Road Stations

Instead of routing High-Speed Rail directly through dense city centers, stations can be located near outer ring roads.

Advantages include:

Lower land acquisition costs
Faster construction
Reduced displacement
Better multimodal connectivity
Creation of new growth centers

Branch-Line Station Design

Major stations need not sit directly on the main high-speed corridor.

Dedicated branch lines allow stopping services to enter stations while express trains continue uninterrupted at maximum speed.

Intelligent Network Operations

Feeder services from East–West corridors should arrive shortly before Spine services and depart after passenger transfers.

This creates seamless nationwide connectivity rather than isolated railway operations.

Why an Integrated Grid Is Better Than Isolated Corridors

An integrated network offers significant long-term advantages.

It provides:

Greater nationwide connectivity
Better utilization of expensive infrastructure
Reduced duplication of future corridors
Easier expansion over time
Balanced regional development
Operational flexibility during disruptions
Faster connections between Tier-2 and Tier-3 cities
Potential for future high-speed freight
Improved disaster response capability
Stronger national integration

Instead of becoming merely a transportation project, High-Speed Rail becomes a national development platform.

Looking Fifty Years Ahead

Transportation infrastructure is built not for today's population but for future generations.

The decisions made today will shape India's mobility for the remainder of the twenty-first century.

An integrated High-Speed Rail Grid can support:

Economic growth
Tourism
Industrial development
Sustainable transportation
New urban growth centers
National integration
Environmental sustainability
Strategic mobility

Like the Interstate Highway System transformed the United States, and the Shinkansen transformed Japan, India has the opportunity to create a transportation network that serves generations to come.

A Humble Contribution

I fully recognize that projects of this magnitude require detailed engineering studies, environmental assessments, financial analysis, public consultation, and careful policymaking.

My proposal is not intended to replace those processes.

It is simply a conceptual framework offered with humility and respect.

If even one idea from this proposal contributes to future discussions on India's High-Speed Rail planning, I will consider my effort worthwhile.

Every great national achievement begins with a vision.

Perhaps this proposal can become part of the conversation about building a faster, more connected, and more prosperous India.

"Great nations are not built merely by solving today's challenges; they are built by planning boldly for the generations yet to come."

Wednesday, August 27, 2025

Governor’s Assent Case: A Constitutional Dispute or a Political Power Play?

Governor’s Assent Case:

Introduction: A New Front in the Battle for Democracy

In India’s constitutional courts, the latest flashpoint is not about elections, not about federal finances, not even about free speech. It is about something seemingly procedural: how long a Governor can sit on a Bill passed by an elected Assembly before giving assent or sending it back.

At first glance, this may sound like a mere administrative detail. But the case currently before the Supreme Court has spiraled into a defining debate on the limits of judicial power, the scope of executive authority, and the role of constitutional conventions in a democracy.

The Government of India insists that the Supreme Court is crossing the line — judges, it argues, can interpret the Constitution but cannot rewrite it by imposing deadlines. The Constitution, after all, is silent on such timelines.

The Supreme Court, for its part, counters that democracy cannot survive if Governors act as political agents and indefinitely stall Bills passed by elected legislatures. If the Constitution is silent, the Court suggests, it is the judiciary’s duty to fill that silence with principles that protect democracy.

But beyond this institutional tug-of-war lies a deeper truth: the entire confrontation is less about the Governor’s role and more about how political parties have captured constitutional offices. Both the Government and the Court are posturing for supremacy, but neither is confronting the elephant in the room — the way in which India’s political party system has distorted the very balance of powers that the Constitution’s framers so carefully designed.

Government’s Position: Judges Cannot Legislate

The Centre’s argument is blunt and direct:

Judges can interpret, but cannot legislate.
Fixing timelines for Governors is equivalent to amending the Constitution, something only Parliament can do.
The Constitution deliberately left the Governor’s role flexible, trusting in constitutional morality and conventions.

From the Government’s perspective, judicially imposed deadlines would be nothing short of rewriting Article 200, which sets out the Governor’s options: assent, withhold assent, return the Bill with recommendations, or reserve it for the President’s consideration. Notably, Article 200 does not prescribe any timeline.

To impose one now, the Government says, is to assume powers the judiciary does not possess. The risk, it warns, is judicial overreach — courts stepping into the legislative and executive domain under the guise of interpretation.

Supreme Court’s Position: Guardians of Democracy

The Supreme Court, however, frames the issue differently:

Democracy collapses if Governors indefinitely sit on Bills.
Judicial interpretation must step in when constitutional silences are exploited to create paralysis.
The Governor is not an independent veto-wielding authority; he is bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers.

From this angle, the Court sees itself not as rewriting the Constitution, but as protecting its underlying spirit. The Constitution may not have fixed timelines, but that silence cannot be abused to paralyze legislatures.

To the Court, this is not judicial overreach but judicial responsibility: ensuring that unelected constitutional authorities (Governors) do not derail the functioning of elected governments.

The Real Issue: Political Capture of Constitutional Offices

Both sides invoke the Constitution. Both claim fidelity to its scheme. But the real conflict is not textual — it is political.

The framers of the Indian Constitution did not even mention political parties. They designed a system where sovereignty rests with the people, mediated through institutions, not through party structures. By omitting parties, they hoped to prevent the domination of organized groups over individual conscience and constitutional morality.

Yet today, political parties are not just participants in democracy; they are its gatekeepers. The Governor is appointed on political lines. The President, despite being elected through an ostensibly independent electoral college, is often treated as a political appointee. Even the Vice President’s office — constitutionally detached from parties — has been captured by partisan maneuvering.

This capture has had devastating consequences. It has reduced the President of India to what critics call a rubber stamp, with the Supreme Court itself reinforcing this diminished role. The so-called “guardian of democracy” has been unwilling to recognize the President as the true constitutional counterbalance.

The present tussle over Governors is, therefore, not a neutral constitutional debate. It is a political power play, where both the Government and the Court are more interested in projecting dominance than in restoring the framers’ vision.

Article 200: The Text and the Spirit

Article 200 is central to the current case. It provides the Governor with four choices when a Bill is presented:

Assent to the Bill.
Withhold assent.
Return the Bill to the legislature with recommendations.
Reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration.

Crucially, Article 200 does not prescribe a timeline.

Why? Because the Constitution’s framers trusted that conventions, fairness, and democratic principles would guide the Governor. The absence of a timeline was not an oversight. It was a deliberate reliance on the unwritten norms of constitutional morality.

If Governors were expected to function in the spirit of democracy, there was no need for rigid deadlines. But when political parties convert Governors into partisan agents, the silence becomes dangerous. That silence is precisely what the Court now seeks to fill.

How Political Parties Broke the System

Let us be clear: this entire case exists only because conventions have collapsed.

Governors are no longer neutral. They are extensions of ruling parties at the Centre.
Presidents are no longer independent umpires. Political parties openly interfere in their elections, turning what should be a non-partisan head of state into a party-backed nominee.
Vice Presidents, too, are reduced to partisan figures, even though the Constitution intended them to be above party control.

This is not what the framers envisioned. The architects of the Constitution wanted the President to be the supreme constitutional authority — not a ceremonial figurehead, and certainly not a party appointee.

Yet both the political class and the judiciary have conspired to ensure the President remains weak. Even in the present case, the Court is unwilling to assert the President’s authority as the ultimate safeguard of democracy. Instead, it seeks to regulate Governors through judicially crafted deadlines, further entrenching the President’s role as merely formal.

Government vs Court: Both Claim Supremacy

In this light, the current battle is less about democracy and more about institutional one-upmanship.

The Government wants to protect executive autonomy, keeping Governors as instruments of central control.
The Court wants to protect legislative sovereignty, ensuring state assemblies are not undermined.

Both positions appear noble. But both are also exercises in dominance. Neither side is truly addressing the deeper malaise: the distortion caused by political parties.

Constitutional Silences: A Dialogue, Not a Tug-of-War

Some scholars argue that this is less a power struggle and more a dialogue about constitutional silences. The Constitution often leaves gaps, expecting conventions to fill them.

But when conventions fail — as they have with partisan Governors — courts feel compelled to step in. The question is whether such judicial intervention restores balance or creates new distortions.

In truth, silence was never the problem. The problem is that political parties have trampled over those silences, converting trust-based conventions into partisan weapons.

The Supreme Court’s Blind Spot: The Presidency

If the Court were truly committed to protecting democracy, it would recognize the President of India as the ultimate guardian.

The President’s election process was designed to ensure independence, free from party interference.
Political parties have undermined this process, turning the President into a symbolic figure with the 24th, 42nd, and 44th Amendments—have eroded the President’s discretionary powers and supremacy.
Instead of restoring the President’s rightful role, the Supreme Court has treated the office as subordinate to Cabinet advice.

Thus, even as the Court claims to defend democracy, it implicitly supports a framework where the President is denied authority — a framework that benefits political parties at the cost of the people’s sovereignty.

What the Framers Intended

The framers of the Constitution deserve the highest praise for their wisdom and foresight. They understood that democracy could not survive if captured by factions. By deliberately omitting political parties, they sought to prevent their dominance.

They designed a constitutional structure in which sovereignty flows from the people, through institutions, not through parties.

But today, the exact opposite prevails. Parties dominate institutions, reducing constitutional offices to extensions of partisan power.

The Governor’s assent case is just one manifestation of this larger crisis.

The Way Forward: Restoring the Framers’ Vision

De-politicize the Office of Governor: Governors must return to being neutral constitutional heads, not party operatives.

Reinforce Presidential Oversight: The President must actively oversee Governors’ conduct, recalling them if they breach their oath. Oath violators must be held accountable and punished.

Limit Judicial Overreach: Courts should not legislate or impose deadlines, but can hold Governors accountable by demanding reasons and ensuring transparency.

Public Re-Awakening: Citizens must reclaim their sovereignty from political parties, recognizing that the Constitution belongs to them, not to party organizations.

Closing Argument: Beyond Deadlines

The current Supreme Court case is being framed as a debate over timelines. Should Governors be forced to act within a fixed period? Or should they be allowed to wait indefinitely?

But the real question is much bigger: who truly governs India — the people through their Constitution, or political parties through their machinery?

The silence of Article 200 was never dangerous. It became dangerous only when political parties converted Governors into partisan agents. The President was never meant to be a rubber stamp. He became one only when political parties hijacked his election.

The Court may claim to be protecting democracy. The Government may claim to be protecting the Constitution. But until India confronts the deeper issue of political capture, these battles will remain surface-level power plays.

The Supreme Court has right to intervene, but its role should not be to set arbitrary deadlines. Instead, it must demand accountability: Why is the Governor indecisive? What justification exists for delay? If the reason is partisan loyalty, then the Governor has violated the oath of office and must be recalled and held accountable—the true constitutional remedy, not judicial micromanagement.

In the end, the Governor’s assent case is not about timelines at all. It is about whether India has the courage to reclaim the Constitution from political parties and restore sovereignty to the people, where it belongs.

The author is a constitutional researcher and advocate for democratic accountability.

Tags: #IndianConstitution #PresidentialPowers #BasicStructure #Amendments #Democracy #Legal Reform #Indian Politics #Dream India #Governor’s Assent Case

Sunday, August 3, 2025

Why the President of India Must Reclaim Constitutional Powers

How the 24th, 42nd, and 44th Amendments Eroded Presidential Discretion and Why It Must Be Restored

By [Vishnu Alluri]

🏛️ Introduction: From Guardian to Rubber Stamp

On 26th November 1949, India adopted a visionary Constitution, placing the President of India at the apex of the Executive—not merely as a ceremonial figurehead, but as a constitutional safeguard. Yet, over decades, this vision has faded.

Three major amendments—the 24th, 42nd, and 44th Amendments—have eroded the President’s discretionary powers, reducing the office to a so-called rubber stamp. This article explores why this erosion is unconstitutional, violates the basic structure doctrine, and demands urgent correction.

⚖️ Article 74: What the Constitution Originally Intended

Originally, Article 74(1) read:

“There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President...”

The phrase “shall act in accordance with such advice” was introduced only later. The framers—especially Dr. Rajendra Prasad and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar—emphasized that the President held discretionary powers in exceptional situations.

Key Articles Empowering the President:

Article 53 – Executive power of the Union
Article 75 – Ministerial appointments
Article 85 – Power to summon and dissolve Parliament
Article 111 – Assent to bills
Article 60 – Oath to defend the Constitution

🛑 The Turning Point: 24th, 42nd & 44th Amendments

1. 24th Amendment (1971)

Made it mandatory for the President to assent to constitutional amendments, removing any room for evaluation or objection.

2. 42nd Amendment (1976)

Passed during the Emergency, this changed Article 74 to read:

“The President shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance with the advice of the Council of Ministers.”

3. 44th Amendment (1978)

Slightly restored balance by allowing the President to return advice for reconsideration, but binding him/her to the reiterated advice.

These amendments stripped away constitutional discretion, even in cases where a President may believe the advice violates democratic principles or constitutional morality.

📚 Why This Is Unconstitutional: The Basic Structure Doctrine

In the landmark case Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court of India laid down the Basic Structure Doctrine, which protects:

Separation of powers
Rule of law
Federalism
Constitutional supremacy

By forcing the President to blindly follow ministerial advice—even in matters of grave national concern—these amendments breach the separation of powers.

The President’s Oath under Article 60:

“To preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.”

How can the President uphold this oath without discretion to refuse unconstitutional advice?

🧑‍⚖️ Supporting Judicial Precedent

In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court held that constitutional authorities must act as safeguards against authoritarianism and political misuse.

Yet today, the President is denied that role. This structural contradiction must be addressed.

✅ What Needs to Be Done

✴️ Judicial Reinterpretation

The Supreme Court must examine whether the 24th, 42nd, and 44th Amendments violate the basic structure. A reinterpretation of Article 74 is essential to:

Restore Presidential discretion in exceptional cases
Rebalance the Executive-Legislature relationship
Reinforce constitutional accountability

✴️ Legislative Repeal (if necessary)

Alternatively, a new constitutional amendment may be needed to repeal or modify the above amendments—bringing Article 74 back in line with its original purpose.

🔍 Frequently Asked Questions (SEO Section)

❓Is the President of India just a ceremonial head?

No. While largely ceremonial in practice today, the original Constitution intended the President to have limited discretionary powers, especially during constitutional crises.

❓Can the President refuse to sign a bill?

Currently, only once. After that, the President must accept the reiterated advice of the Council of Ministers.

❓Which amendments curtailed Presidential powers?

The 24th (1971), 42nd (1976), and 44th (1978) Amendments.

🧩 Conclusion: A Constitutional Imperative

India needs a President who can act—not just approve. The erosion of discretionary powers is not merely an academic concern—it weakens the very fabric of democratic governance.

Repealing or reinterpreting the 24th, 42nd, and 44th Amendments is not a radical idea. It is a constitutional necessity.

📖 Sources & References

Constituent Assembly Debates – Volume 9
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1
The Constitution of India – Articles 53, 60, 74, 75, 85, 111

The author is a constitutional researcher and advocate for democratic accountability.

Tags: #IndianConstitution #PresidentialPowers #BasicStructure #Amendments #Democracy #Legal Reform #Indian Politics #Dream India

Thursday, May 5, 2022

Why I want to contest in coming Presidential Elections?

As per the Constitution we adopted in 1950 Article 58, any citizen of India who completed 35 years of age can contest in the Presidential Elections, political parties didn't have any role in Presidential Elections; but our legislatures brought Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act in 1952 and added a clause that the nomination form must be accompanied with signatures of electors (MP/MLA) as proposers and seconders, which blocked ordinary citizens from contesting in Presidential Elections.

In order to change our Prsidential Elections process, I came forward and expressed my intention to contest in 2017 Presidential Elections and contacted around 900 MP/MLA through email and requested to propose me, none of them responded. Hence once again I am expressing my intention to contest in the 2022 Presidential Election.

My electoral mandate for this term is as follows:

For World peace, forcing the UN to work and function more Democratically and stripe-off the Veto powers; abolish military Groups/Alliances/Organizations like NATO, CSTO, ANZUS, AUKUS, QUAD.
Strengthen and glorify the Indian Democracy and spread the fruits of Democracy to the World.
Withdraw 42nd (1976) and 44th (1978) amendments to the Article 74, which downgraded President's status and made the honorable President of India as voiceless, powerless, choice less and made him/her a mere constitutional head (a rubber stamp for the name sake).
Declare that the Indian States are Sovereign States and they can't leave Indian Union.
President of India is the First Citizen of India, likewise the Governor of a state must be the First Citizen of that state. Accordingly the Constitution of India will be amended to specify the duties, responsibilities and a new process for electing the Governor of a State.
Declare that the religious propaganda as Criminal offence and ban the process of changing Religion, violators will be punished with Treason charges. Remove religion and cast columns from government records.
Declare and give autonomous status to Election Commission and CAG. Instead of collecting census data every 10 years, census will be collected live. Instead of surveying and issuing Voter ID cards every 5 years, Census department will issue the permanent Voter ID cards.
Communism failed due to indolence while Capitalism is failing due to selfish and greedy individuals, hence, democratic nations shouldn’t follow either of these concepts as they don’t fit within Democratic ideology, we should develop a new financial system "Collectivism".
Crop and Price guarantee insurance program for all Farmers.
Block the Black marketers and minimize the brokers/mediators and structuralize the pricing of natural commodities and controlling the price indexes.
Build, develop and encouraging public transportation and make it cheaper, faster and reliable.
Restructure the State Police Departments to deliver faster, reliable and responsible services to the people and deliver the speedy/timely Justice.

Vandemataram

Thanking You
Vishnu Alluri

Thursday, April 16, 2020

Let us revolt against the novel Corona virus

The novel Corona virus is threatening the mankind and destroying the economies around the world and changing our lives forever, so let’s revolt against it.

As we all know the American govt. refused to lock down the entire nation, due to this Coronavirus is showing its devastating effect on America and it affected 0.19% of the population (6,39,664 out of 33,10,02,651) and the death toll mounts to 30,985 as of 15th April, which means 4.84% persons died who are affected, 0.01% of deaths against the total American population. When we look at the densely populated New York city it affected 1.19% of the population (2,14,832 out of 1,88,04,000) and the death toll mounts to 10,899 as of 15th April, which means 5.07% persons died who are affected, 0.06% of deaths against the total New York City’s population. Since India is more densely populated when compared to America, let’s assume it will affect 2.00% of the population (2,77,45,949 out of 138,72,97,452) and assume the death toll as 10% then 27,74,595 persons will die, which is 0.20% of deaths against the total Indian population.

But the Indian govt. took a daring step on 22nd March and announced complete lockdown for 21 days & told us to maintain the one-meter social distance. We the people of India did our best, but it isn’t enough. We stood in big lines without maintaining enough distance for ration, groceries, vegetables and medicines. Anyway, as per the recent findings the required distance for Coronavirus is 9 meters. Our intelligence agencies are clueless about what is going on in Nizamuddin as a result the Coronavirus got a chance to infiltrate in to our villages.

Our State governments failed to address and solve the migrant workers problems, due to this we have a big mess at the state boarders and the Corona virus spreading further. America tested 1% of its population around 30 lakh Coronavirus tests 20% of them are positive, in this case we are supposed to do 1.30 crore Coronavirus tests before finishing the 21 days lockdown, which ended on 14th April. In reality we did only 2.4 lakh tests only, since we don’t have test kits. Out of which 4.5% are positive. The Indian government placed an order for 45 lakh test kits, which will reach India in the month of May. According to the news channels China stopped the test kits and raw materials export. In India we started manufacturing the Coronavirus test kits, they might be available by end of April.

Our Indian government took another courageous step and further extended the lockdown for another 19 days with new guidelines, which will end on 3rd May. The ICMR’s random tests proved that the Coronavirus is spreading under the carpet silently. In order to save around 28 lakh (as per the above calculations) or may be one crore life’s, if we all are going to lock ourselves do nothing, are we going to jeopardize the future of the rest of the population of 138 crores?

One study says that the Corona virus isn’t spreading rapidly in hot weather, another study says that the Corona virus isn’t spreading rapidly due to BCG vaccination. If these studies are true then we are very lucky. Our uncleanliness also giving us an advantage that most our bodies are immune to several pathogens (viruses).

Our Indian philosophy is so strong and it made us to realize that the death is inevitable, so be it. Death may come in the form of Corona, but we shouldn’t die in the closed doors, lets fight against it in our streets, it may take some of our lives but not at the cost of our future.

So far, the known treatment to Corona virus is Hydroxy Chloroquine along with Azithromycin for severely affected patients, ventilator support if necessary. For the Corona virus positive patients, they are giving Paracetamol tablets to reduce the fever and keeping them in isolation for a period of 14 days and retesting them until their two consecutive tests are negative to send them home. As per the recent findings such persons are still carrying the Corona virus in their intestines and discharging virus through urine and stools (human waste) for 6 weeks.

Every human body produces Antibodies every day to protect our body from Pathogens (viruses) on 24/7 basis. If we exposed to Coronavirus, at this stage our body has to fight with multiple virus at the same time instead if we take one dose of Azithromycin 500mg (1 Tablet once a day for 3 days) as I suggest, then, it will clean up all the Pathogens (viruses) from our body, at this stage if we are exposed to Coronavirus, we will have only one enemy (Corona) in our body, hence our Antibodies can efficiently fight against the Coronavirus, in the process our bodies will develop more/new Antibodies so we will become immune to the Novel Coronavirus. In order to boost our immune system, we must take Multi Vitamin supplements, Vitamin C, Vitamin D and Zinc tablets every day.

On behalf of fellow citizens, I am herewith requesting our honorable Prime Minister to supply the following medicine to the entire population and force them to use it for the next 120 days to revolt against the novel Corona Virus.

Azithromycin 500 mg / 250 mg (for kids) 4 doses for 4 months.
Multi Vitamins and Mineral tablets 120.
Vitamin C tablets 120.
Vitamin D tablets 120.
Zinc tablets 120.

If everyone of us are able to do this successfully, no one will be suffering with common seasonal viruses like cold, flu etc. If anyone is still suffering with symptoms like common cold or flu, we can easily identify them as severely Corona infected persons since they aren’t be able to produce enough antibodies, so they need treatment, then we must shift them to hospital to test and treat them and to keep them in isolation.

The main ambition of the perpetrators to spread the Coronavirus is to destroy the economies around the world, we going to punish them in the due course, but we must destroy their ambition first. Hence, I request our honorable Prime Minster to take the following steps to revive our economy.

Close all the mass gathering places like Schools, Malls, Cinema Theaters, Function Halls, Staying Hotels, Temples, Masjids, Churches and Religious gatherings until further notice or till June 15th.
Let’s open all the business, shops and restaurants (not to dine in only to carry out) between 7 AM to 4PM except pan shops, liquor, Meat and poultry stores.
Declare 144 section and deploy the Army to enforce and destroy gatherings.
Retired persons (who are above 58 years of age), kids, students, heart, diabetes, kidney and liver problem patients, persons with autoimmune disease and persons with weak immune system must stay at home they shouldn’t be allowed to come out.
Let’s open and keep running all factories normally, the industries should arrange buses to pick up and drop workforce, before boarding the bus they must check the temperature of each employee, if any one develops the symptoms of Corona virus must be sent to Hospital. The industries must provide a face mask (A4 size plastic transparent sheet and elastic head band) to all its employees, if any of employee’s family members are under the category of above mentioned point (4), such employee must stay at the factory only or they can be opted out from the work.
Public transportation is not allowed including Cabs and Autos except Goods carrying vehicles.
All farming related Shops, Vehicles and works should work normally without any interruptions.
Loading and Unloading laborer should wear the facemask and must be allowed to work as usual.
Give permission to all Door delivery firms like amazon, flipcart, bigbasket, swiggy and so on.

Thanking You

Vandemataram
Vishnu Alluri

Wednesday, October 3, 2018

The President of India is Supreme, Really!!! Isn’t he/she a rubber stamp?

Yes, the President of India is supreme, he/she has the supreme authority as per the Constitution we adopted in 1949 on 26th Nov. Our founding fathers gave us the best possible unique democratic system (which never existed before) and the Constitution to build our Dream India. But we the Citizens of India failed to unveil and preserve the true form of our Constitution, not only that we also failed to protect the President of India’s powers; rather we should feal ashamed to call him a rubber stamp.

Our democracy is structured on three pillars, Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. President is the head of the Executive and Supreme Commander of armed forces as per Article 53, he/she is indirectly elected by the citizens of India as per Article 55. The President of India appoints Prime Minister of India and council of ministers as per Article 75(1), The council of Ministers including the head (Prime Minister) shall hold office during the pleasure of the President as Per Article 75(2), The Prime Minister and Council of Minister are there to aid and advise the President of India as per Article 74(1). The President appoints several heads of the different organs of the Indian Democracy for example Governors, AG, Chief Election Commissioner and so on. The President has the right to accept or reject the laws which are made by the Legislatures as per Article 368, he/she summons the Parliament (Both Houses) to start sessions, he/she can prorogue the houses and he/she can also dissolve the House of People (Elected Legislatures) as per Article 85; all these prove that the President of India has highest authority over Legislature Branch.

President has power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence as per Article 72, he/she appoints the Chief Justice of India, Chief Justices of all High Courts, Supreme Court and High Court Judges As per Articles 126 and 124. This proves that the President has supreme authority over the Judiciary too.

As per Article 60 the President of India gives oath or affirmation that “I will faithfully execute the office of President (or discharge the functions of the President) of India and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law and that I will devote myself to the service and well-being of the people of India” which means he/she will rule according to his/her will, but he/she can’t act as a monarch or dictator. If he/she does, in order to correct it, our Constitution gave a right to Legislature branch to impeach such a President as per Article 61. If Executive or Legislature branches breaches the Constitution, in order to correct it, any citizen can approach the Judiciary or the Judiciary can act itself with its drawn suo motu powers to overturn the Executive and Legislatures decisions.

Doesn’t it sound the President of India is supreme? Then what went wrong and how our President became so weak; and who reduced his/her powers in becoming a rubber stamp?

Article 368 specified procedures to amend the constitution, which means the Parliament has a right to amend the constitution, but our founding fathers failed to specify the limits. Honorable Supreme Court of India failed to set the things straight in Shankari Prasad vs Union of India case in 1951, it could have established the basic structure doctrine or it could have said that the Parliament can amend the Constitution as per Article 368, such amendments are subject to Judicial review, instead it said that “The Parliament, under Article 368, has power to amend of any part of the constitution” and reinstated the same in 1965 Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan case, may be because the founding fathers and authors of the Constitution were sitting in the Legislature branch at that time.

Article 368 only lay down the procedure to amend the constitution, which means that the parliament can amend the constitution, but to what extent, which articles and parts it can amend isn’t defined in our constitution, which is a big loop hole. But our founding fathers gave powers to Executive, Judiciary and Legislature, to oversee each other and to balance the power of equilibrium. As per 368 Parliament has a right to amend the constitution, all the amendments will be presented for the President of India’s assent, he/she has the right to decide to give the assent or not, if he/she isn’t being able to decide, then as per Article 143 he/she can consult the Supreme Court of India for suggestion, he/she will act according to his/her wish. To protect Part III Fundamental Rights and for constitutional remedies any one can approach Supreme Court, so it can correct them.

Subsequently the honorable supreme court realized its past mistakes through 1967 Golak Nath vs State of Punjab case and gave a verdict that the Article 368 only lays down the procedure to amend the constitution and does not give absolute powers to the parliament to amend any part of the constitution. This judgement was pronounced in February 1967 while the elections for 4th Lok Sabha were going on.

Let’s step aside for a moment from Article 368 to observe the interesting and important events that took place after Golak Nath vs State of Punjab case verdict. Smt. Indira Gandhi became the Prime Minister of India; in 1969, during 5th Presidential election she differed with the Indian National Congress (INC) leaders, she worked behind the curtain and got elected her own candidate Sri. V.V. Giri as President of India; after this the INC divided into Congress(O) and Congress(R), Smt. Indira Gandhi formed and lead Congress(R) in 1969 and she held the power with the help of regional parties, and dissolved the 4th Lok Sabha one year before its tenure on 27th Dec 1970. The President of India appointed her as an acting Prime Minister, U.N.R. Rao appealed in Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No 196 of 1971 U N Rao Vs Smt. Indira Gandhi) against it. SC delivered a verdict on 17th Mar 1971 and held a view without proper contentions that “Art. 74(1) is mandatory and the President cannot exercise his executive power without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, with the Prime Minister at the head”, which was unnecessary and the decision crippled the President of India. This view gave a weapon to the Legislature branch to invade Executive and Judiciary Branches.

Instead they could have delivered the same verdict by stating that as per Article 75(1), the President appoints the council of ministers, as per Article 75(2) President will retain them as long as he/she wants, when the House of People is dissolved, the council of ministers temporarily discharge their duties until new House of People is elected. As per Article 74(1) the council of minister’s main duty is to aid and advice the President. Not only that as per Article 75(3) the council of ministers are also responsible for the House of the People, they don’t exercise this function since it is dissolved.

Smt. Indira Gandhi became Prime Minster of India once again on 15th Mar 1971, she acted like a monarch, and to abrogate the Supreme Court ruling in Golaknath vs. State of Punjab and to take advantage of the SC’s verdict dated 17th March 1971 (Civil Appeal No 196 of 1971 U N Rao Vs Smt. Indira Gandhi) the Congress(R) party brought 24th Amendment on 28th July 1971, made changes to Article 13 and 368, which enables Parliament to dilute Fundamental Rights through Amendments of the Constitution. It also amended article 368 to provide expressly that Parliament has power to amend any provision of the Constitution. The amendment further made it obligatory for the President to give his/her assent. The then President of India Mr. V.V. Giri blindly gave his assent to 24th amendment, even though his powers got reduced. Was it because Smt. Indira Gandhi made him as President against Congress parties wish? He failed and ignored his oath to protect the Constitution of India.

The honorable Supreme court delivered a land mark judgment on 24th April 1973 in Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala case, and brought Basic structure Doctrine and Upholding the validity of clause (4) of article 13 and a corresponding provision in article 368(3), inserted by the 24th Amendment. But the honorable court failed to address and revert back one of the changes of the 24th amendment to the Article 368 - from “it shall be presented to the President who shall give his assent to the Bill and thereupon” to “it shall be presented to the President for his assent and upon such assent being given to the Bill”.

This change mandated the President of India to sign the amendments, which means that the 24th amendment took away the President’s discretionary powers, and which in return altered the basic structure of the Constitution. None had objected this nor noticed nor bothered about it. As discussed before, the constitution of India gave powers to Executive and Judiciary branches to override the wrong doing of the Legislature branch. Due to 24th amendment, Executive branch lost its power.

On 12th June 1975, the Allahabad High Court declared Indira Gandhi's election to the Lok Sabha void in 1971 on grounds of electoral malpractice. The court order, stripped her parliamentary seat and banned her from running for any office (contesting in any elections) for six years. She disobeyed the verdict and declared the state of emergency. Since the President, the honorable court and citizens of India were blindfolded in this matter, she brought 42nd Constitutional amendment during the emergency in 1976 and altered the Article 74(1) as “[(1) There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President who shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance with such advice:]” which means the President (Master) must act according to the Prime Ministers’/Council of Ministers’(appointee/adviser) advise, the Master can’t reject such advise even though it is unconstitutional or harmful or useless to the Citizens of India also.

Later on, Janata party brought 44th Constitutional amendment and altered the Article 74(1) as “[Provided that the President may require the Council of Ministers to reconsider such advice, either generally or otherwise, and the President shall act in accordance with the advice tendered after such reconsideration.]” which mean that the President (Master) can reject the advice (unconstitutional or harmful or useless to the Citizens of India) only one time, if the Prime Ministers’/Council of Ministers’(appointee/adviser) reiterates the same advice then the Master must might work like a rubber stamp.

We adopted the Constitution of India on 26th Nov 1949. Article 74's original content is as follows “(1) There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President in the exercise of his functions.” As per this, the President of India is Supreme and he/her has the final authority to accept/reject the cabinets decisions. The council of ministers including PM are there to aid and advice the President of India, it was our first President of India’s view about Article 74(1). According to an article What are the Indian President's powers?, which was published in The Hindu newspaper on 6th June 2006, written by Senior Advocate in SC and Ex Minster of Law and Justice Mr. Shanti Bhushan, when Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and President Rajendra Prasad had fallen out with each other in 1954 on the Hindu Code Bill, The then President Mr. Rajendra Prasad wrote to Attorney General "the Council of Ministers' duty was merely to aid and advise the President, and the President was not bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers”. Mr. Nehru’s charisma over shadowed Mr. Rajendra Prasad and his voice.

UK didn’t have a written constitution hence the British constitution primarily draws from four sources: statute law (laws passed by the legislature), common law (laws established through court judgments), parliamentary conventions, and works of authority. In UK the Parliament is supreme, but the Indian Democracy is a unique one, after we adopted the written Constitution of India in 1949, we have to abide to this and all the institutions have to draw their powers from this document only.

As per Article 75(1) President of India appoints the Prime Minister of India and based on PM’s advice the President appoints other Ministers. As Per Article 75(3) The council of Ministers including the head (Prime Minister) shall hold office during the pleasure of the President, which means that the council of ministers must always meet the expectations; discharge their duties satisfactorily; fulfil the needs and wishes of the President of India, if not the President can dismiss the council of ministers including Prime Minister.

The President of India can appoint any citizens of India as Prime Minister or Ministers, they don’t have to be a member of either house of the Parliament at the time of appointment, which means that all the citizens of India are not electing any one, as council of ministers or Prime Minister of India. It clearly proves that they are selected by President of India to aid and advise him/her. On behalf of the President they will take the responsibility of the Parliament, this is the main theme of the Articles 74(1) and 75(3).

The 24th Constitutional amendment took away the President of India’s discretionary powers to put on hold or reject the Legislature’s laws/amendments/acts. 42nd and 44th amendments forced him/her to obey the Prime Minister/Council of Ministers decisions even though they are harmful or useless to Citizens of India or unconstitutional. Due to these amendments, our Prime Ministers are enjoying unlimited power and acting as supreme, the appointee/adviser turned out as master and the master became puppet in the hands of the appointee/adviser to whom he/she choose and appointed.

The 24th, 42nd and 44th amendments to the Constitution are done unconstitutionally, since they altered the basic structure of the Indian Constitution; Legislatures successfully invaded the Executive branch and in turn kept on trying to conquer the Judiciary too; does any doubts exist in terms of the progress they made in this regard?

Due to the 24th, 42nd and 44th constitutional amendments, our President of India became voiceless, powerless, choice less and mere constitutional head for the namesake, and as a result he/she became a rubber stamp. As a Citizen of India, it’s our fundamental duty to unveil and preserve the true form of our Indian Constitution to build our Dream India, step up and raise your voice to glorify the Indian Democracy.

Vande mataram
Vishnu Alluri

Thursday, May 11, 2017

My intention to contest for Indian Presidential Election 2017 – An open appeal to MPs and MLAs.

In India, our Constitution is supreme and is above any religion, caste or politics; however, we are instilling wrong notion in the minds of public that Political parties are beyond and above Constitution. It’s very sad to say that even after 70 years of Independence, our MPs and MLAs failed to correct / oppose this notion.

Political Parties Whip is inherited from British Colonial Rule; it wasn’t part of Indian Constitution. The elected members (MPs) of the 8th Lok Sabha blindly voted to pass 52nd amendment to our Constitution and brought anti defection law in 1985. Because of these rules and acts, Indian MPs and MLAs became slaves to their respective political parties and their party high commands, which is unconstitutional and unacceptable.

If we notice, MPs and MLAs sworn in by stating “I do swear in the name of God solemnly affirm that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established and that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India.” As per Indian Constitution, Indian Parliament is a constituent assembly, which means that all the members should act with their freewill without any influence. MP or MLAs association with a political party is their private affair, like a club membership or a satsang or religious belief; they can’t carry forward these private affairs in to the Parliament or Assembly. But if we look at the current situation, MPs and MLAs are being bound to party whips and are scared to vote against their political party’s ill wills with the fear of anti-defection laws.

Constitution of India has vested more powers to the President of India, but 42nd (1976) and 44th (1978) amendments to the Article 74 downgraded his/her status and made the honorable President of India as voiceless, powerless, choice less and made him/her a mere constitutional head (a rubber stamp for the name sake); he/she just gives a nod to the cabinet’s decision even though it is not in the overall interest of the citizens of India. Respective political party heads are controlling their fellow party workers, MPs and MLAs; and also using them to full fill their ill wills; appointing their puppets for President of India chair, and because of such acts they further downgraded our President’s stature. Political parties or its owners or its high command shouldn’t have any role in Presidential elections, but in reality, they are dictating the presidential elections; this is pathetic and totally unacceptable.

According to our Constitution (Article 58), any citizen of India who completed 35 years of age can contest in the Presidential Elections; but our Political party heads brought Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act in 1952 and blocked ordinary citizens from contesting by adding a clause that the nomination form must be accompanied with signatures from at least 10 electors as proposers and at least 10 electors as seconders. Further, in order to block even small political parties that are mushrooming in this country, from contesting in Presidential elections, major Political parties used President of India to issue an Ordinance on 5th June, 1997 and further amended Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act; they increased proposers and seconders number from 10 to 50, which means we need 50 proposers and 50 seconders to file a nomination for Presidential elections. All this has happened at that time to block an independent candidate, former Chief Election Commissioner Mr. T. N. Sheshan from 1997 Presidential Election; Seshan gave nightmares to all political parties from 1990 to 1996. Seshan didn’t give up despite the hurdles and contested but lost in 1997 Presidential election. Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act is unconstitutional and it must be abolished. Due to the above cited reasons, our democracy is heading in the wrong direction. I respect and adore all former Indian Presidents personally, but I believe that they all failed to stop this malice. As responsible citizens of India and as elected representatives of your constituency, you all have a responsibility to change this. Please cast your vote wisely and elect such a figure as President of India, who can standup to the challenges and bring back our nation into right track; and help to establish the true democracy in India as defined in the Constitution of India, by our forefathers.

At a global level, despite being the largest democratic nation on this earth constituting 17% of world’s population, we still don’t have proper representation in UNO. The UNO itself isn’t functioning based on democratic principles but being controlled by war thirsty nations, and we are acting to their tunes though it shouldn’t be the case. Communism failed due to indolence while Capitalism is failing due to selfishness and greediness, hence, democratic nations shouldn’t follow either of these concepts as they don’t fit our ideology. All countries are increasingly spending their money on defense budgets rather than development. We should lead this world to unity and promote “live and let others live in peace”. There is a great disparity between poor and rich. Middle class is running behind the mirage to live comfortably; in this process we are becoming money minded and dying in unrest; we lost our peace and looking up in the air for some miracle to happen and fix all the problems in India. We are a youthful nation at this moment and after 30 years, majority of our citizens will become old; we must sustain, strengthen and revolutionize our systems in the coming 5 years, if not our dear nation will lose its esteem; it will ruin the entire nation and it will affect the future generations, who will be treated as stray dogs. We are at eleventh hour, we need to hurry up and do the right thing.

To enlighten fellow citizens of India, I Vishnu Alluri, born citizen of India and 50 years old, coming forward to contest in the coming 2017 Presidential Election. I neither belong to any Political party / Organization nor sympathizer to any Political party / Organization. As per the Constitution of India, I am eligible to contest, but as per the current Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act I need 50 electors to support me as proposers and 50 electors to support me as seconders. Hence, I am humbly appealing and requesting in public and trying to reach all of you (MPs and MLAs) through my blog ( http://vishnualluri.blogspot.com ) and emails. If you are pleased to support me, then please click on the following link and fill the details prior to sending to me @ (visalluri@gmail.com).

Download to propose Download to second the nomination

Vandemataram.

Thanking You,
Vishnu Alluri

Dear fellow Citizens of India,

If you think that I am a good candidate to become President of India, then please request your respective MPs and MLAs to propose me and vote for me.

Click on the following to get contact details of your MP’s:
        Lok Sabha Members.
        Rajya Sabha Members.

Click on the following links for more information about:
        2017 Indian Presidential Election, Selection Process, Electoral College and Electoral Votes.
        Indian Presidential Elections FAQ.
        List of Honorable Former Indian Presidents.

Vandemataram.

Thanking You,
Vishnu Alluri

Monday, November 9, 2015

An opinion cum suggestions to improve collegium system for judicial appointments.

To,
The Honorable Chief Justice of India &
Constitutional Bench headed by Justice JS Khehar on NJAC - Collegium Case WP(C) 13/2015,
Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi.

Respected Sir,

Subject: An opinion cum suggestions to improve collegium system for judicial appointments.

Why we should oppose National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)?

Democracy is all about distribution of powers, it is constituted as 3 pillars Legislature, Judiciary and Executive. Due to political party system Legislative powers are concentrated in the hands of few party heads. They became as unofficial dictators of democracy, because of this both Legislature and Executive branches are in slavery. Executive branch failed to sustain its independence, due to their nexus and dependency on legislature for their day to day activities. NJAC bill is an attempt to bring Judiciary under their umbrella.

We are thankful to the Supreme Court of India for its historic verdict against NJAC. This verdict rescued the Judiciary from falling into the hands of Legislatures (Politicians), and stood tall to protect its autonomous status. Lot of criticism prevailed all these days due to lack of transparency and accountability in the appointment of Judges through Collegium system. SC's Constitutional bench willingness to accept suggestion from everyone to fix the Collegium, is a great and correct thing to do. It's my pleasure to give some below suggestions to help fix the Democratic system for good. Not only just the Collegium but entire Judiciary needs a makeover.

Autonomous Status:

As we all know Judiciary is an autonomous body, but still not independent enough to raise its finances and do the investigations. Our Legislature branch failed to give complete autonomy to the Judiciary. All State High courts should raise their funds by imposing a Judicial State Tax at state level and its state governments will be responsible to collect and transfer those taxes those respective state high courts. For Supreme Court, Central government should be responsible to collect and give Judicial Central Tax. CAG should audit the judicial expenditure. CAG, CBI and Election commission also deserve an autonomous status. CBI should have a separate wing to carry out investigations on behalf of Supreme Court, and should only report directly to the SC, but not to anyone else.

Minimum Qualification for Judges and PP's:

Minimum qualification to become Judge or Public Prosecutor (PP) should be a Masters in Law (ML) degree and minimum 5 years of law practice, and must be recruited only through a public service commission in lower courts.

Process to select High Court Judges:

To become High Court Judge, such person should have worked as Judge in lower court for at least 15 years. Interested candidates should apply to the State High Court registrar with their bio data along with 10 of their exemplary judgments, to prove their eligibility on or before 15th of Jan every year. Registry should add the statistics year wise how many cases were heard by them and how many cases were resolved. Chief Justice of that state will nominate 1/3rd of state judges as State Judges Collegium of that state and they will select and prepare the list of judges equivalent to the number of judges to that corresponding state by 15th of February every year. State Judges Collegium have a right to seek state intelligence report about the candidates to make an assessment.

SC should find out how many number of Judge's positions that are going to available by the end of June of for each current year (consider this figure as “X”) and the assessment for the same should be ready by the end of Feb of that year. Every High Court will have coefficient, which is derived from number of Judges in that High Court divided by total number of Judges in all High Courts. So total 2X plus few number of candidates should be selected for review from each high court. Coefficient of that high court multiplied by 2X should be rounded to the next highest number or at least one of the candidates should be selected from the top of each high court list for review by 15th March. This probable list will be sent to each high court Chief Justice for review, they should pick 1.5X (should be rounded to the next highest number) number of candidates from that list and should be sent to the Registrar of the Supreme Court of India. The SC registry should consolidate the list and publish it on 30th March. Candidates can withdraw their candidature by 5th April if they choose. On 6th April SC registry should order the CBI to enquire on the list of candidates. CBI should submit its report by 30th April.

Chief Justice of India should select the members of SC State Judges Collegium with 1/3rd of the SC judges and remaining 2/3rd of the SC judges as members of SC Judges Collegium by 5th April. The State Judges Collegium should sit in the 1st week of summer vacation and should select 1.2X candidates. Out of this list CJI should select the X number of judges and that list should be sent to the President of India for final approval. In case the President of India want to reject any candidate, The President should seek the CJI's inputs and then only the President should reject the candidate with an appropriate reason. The selected Judges should join in 1st week of July.

Process to select Supreme Court Judges:

In order to become as Supreme Court Judge, candidate should be a high court judge for 15 years, Chief Justice of high court should not be eligible to apply. Interested candidates should apply to the State registrar with their bio data along with 10 of their exemplary judgments as high court judge, to prove their eligibility on or before 15th of Jan each year. Registry should add the statistics by the end of February. The statistics should be based on how many cases were heard by them and how many cases were resolved with average number of days the case was heard year wise. Chief Justice of that state will short list the candidates and bring it down to no more than 1/3th of that state high court number of judges. And sends that list to SC Registrar by end of March. Chief Justice of that state have a right to seek state intelligence report about the candidates to make an assessment.

SC should find out how many number of SC Judge's positions which are going to available by the end of June of each current year (consider this figure as “Y”)and this assessment should be ready by the end of March that year. Every High Court should have coefficient, which is derived from Number of Judges in that High Court divided by total number of Judges in all High Courts.

Total 3Y plus few number of candidates should be selected by SC Registry for review, from each high court coefficient of that high court multiplied by the 3Y rounded to the next highest number or at least one of candidate should be selected from the top of each high courts list for review. The SC registry should consolidate the list and publish it by 15th April, Candidates can with draw their candidature by 20th April if they choose. On 21st April SC registry should order the CBI enquiry on the list of candidates. CBI should submit its report by 30th April. The consolidated list should be sent to SC Judges Collegium for its review. It will bring down the number to 1.5Y. Out of this list Chief Justice of India should select the Y number of high court judges and that list should be sent to the President of India for final approval. In case the President of India want to reject any candidate, The President should seek the CJI's inputs and then only the President should reject the candidate with an appropriate reason. The selected Judges should join SC in 1st week of July.

Other Selections:

Chief Justice of India and Chief Justice of High Court should be nominated according to their seniority, which is same as per current nominating system. All other Judicial appointees of state and central government representatives such as Attorney General, Government Pleaders / Prosecutors and PP's should be appointed through the respective State Judges Collegium or by SC Judges Collegium. All these appointees aren't eligible to become SC Judges.

Judge's Wages & Transfers:

High Court Judges should be transferred in between the high court's after finishing 5 years of service, Judges with 50 plus years of age should be exempted from transfers. SC Registry should prepare the list of judges to be transferred every year and submit it to SC Judges Collegium to take transfers. National Pay Commission appointed by the government of India should fix the pay structure and perks for judiciary, which will be constituted every 5 years by the Parliament.

Example:

Required number of High Court Judges (X) 45
Probable list of candidates 2X plus 105 selected from 604
Each high court Chief Justice will selects (1.5X) 68 out of 105
SC State Judges Collegium selects (1.2X) 54 out of 68
Chief Justice of India selects 45 out of 54

Required number of Supreme Court Judges (Y) 6
Probable list of candidates 3Y plus 32 selected from 201
SC Judges Collegium selects (1.5Y) 9 out of 32
Chief Justice of India selects 6 out of 9

Vande mataram

Thanking You
Vishnu Alluri