Not Vacating Office or Residence After Losing Power Is Indefensible

A disturbing trend appears to be emerging among some politicians who, after being voted out of office, show reluctance to abide by the rules and conventions governing the relinquishment of power and official privileges. In a democracy, respect for the people's mandate requires not only accepting electoral defeat but also gracefully surrendering the offices, residences, and privileges attached to power.

Two examples that attracted public attention are those of Mamata Banerjee and Rabri Devi, both former Chief Ministers of their respective states. The country witnessed an unprecedented constitutional situation when Mamata Banerjee, despite losing the Assembly election, did not immediately relinquish office. Ultimately, the Governor had to intervene and administer the oath to the new Chief Minister. Such incidents undermine democratic norms and set an unhealthy precedent.

The conduct of Rabri Devi and her husband, Lalu Prasad Yadav, who together dominated Bihar's politics for nearly one and a half decades, has also raised serious questions. Rabri Devi is presently the Leader of the Opposition in the Bihar Legislative Council, while her son, Tejashwi Yadav, serves as the Leader of the Opposition in the Bihar Legislative Assembly.

Rabri Devi has been residing at 10 Circular Road, Patna, since demitting the office of Chief Minister in 2006. However, in November 2025, the Bihar Government earmarked and formally allotted 39 Hardinge Road as the official residence of the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council. Since she has already been provided an official residence in her current capacity, there appears to be little justification for continuing to occupy a bungalow that has since been allotted to a serving minister.

The issue assumes greater significance in light of the Patna High Court's 2019 judgment striking down the policy that allowed former Chief Ministers to retain government bungalows indefinitely. The court made it clear that such residences are public property meant for current constitutional and public functionaries, not for the lifetime use of former office-holders. While the government has honoured Rabri Devi's entitlement by allotting her an alternative official residence, her insistence on retaining the same bungalow risks conveying the wrong message. Rather than challenging the government to evict her, it would be far more appropriate to resolve the matter amicably and in accordance with the law.

This is not the first time that questions have been raised about the conduct of former holders of high office. When Akhilesh Yadav vacated the official residence of the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, he was accused of removing fixtures and causing damage to the property, drawing widespread criticism in the media.

The larger question is why some individuals who have occupied the highest public offices find it difficult to observe the very rules and conventions that they once administered. Public office carries not only authority but also the responsibility to set an example. A graceful exit after the loss of power strengthens democratic institutions; resistance to it weakens public faith in them. Whatever the political affiliation of the individuals concerned, refusal to vacate official residences or relinquish official privileges after their entitlement has ceased is difficult to defend from any perspective.

Some Changes Brought by the Modi Government Are No Less Than Revolutionary

 The Modi government has ushered in several transformational changes over the past twelve years from the perspective of ordinary citizens.

The first major change is that young men and women from modest backgrounds no longer have to run from pillar to post to get their documents attested by gazetted officers. Earlier, they often had to visit government offices or even the homes of officials, and many were compelled to pay small bribes to peons or staff members merely to have their documents signed and verified. This not only wasted the time of the youth but also that of the officers and their staff. Prime Minister Narendra Modi ended this cumbersome practice through an announcement made from the ramparts of the Red Fort (Lal Quila).

The second significant step was the opening of zero-balance bank accounts for the poorest sections of society without burdensome paperwork. Instead of forcing poor citizens to repeatedly visit bank branches, bank officials themselves reached out to them. At the time, the initiative was ridiculed by critics and political opponents, but it ultimately brought millions of underprivileged people into the formal banking system.

The third major reform is the Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) scheme, under which lakhs of beneficiaries now receive government assistance directly into their bank accounts. In the past, a substantial portion of welfare funds meant for the poor was siphoned off by middlemen and corrupt officials. Today, however, the money reaches the intended beneficiaries directly, ensuring transparency and minimising leakages.

Long queues of pensioners outside bank counters during the first week of every month were once a distressing ordeal for elderly citizens. For many senior citizens, standing for hours to collect their pensions was nothing short of traumatic. However, thanks to the DBT system, much of this hardship has disappeared, as pension amounts are now credited directly into their bank accounts. One only needs to speak to pensioners to understand the immense relief and convenience this reform has brought to their lives.

Another landmark initiative has been the construction of household toilets, popularly referred to as “Izzatghars,” which has brought about a social revolution, especially in rural India. Chaudhary Charan Singh, when he was the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, once remarked at a public gathering that he avoided travelling by road in the evenings because roadsides were lined with people defecating in the open. One could imagine the hardship faced by newly married women in villages, particularly if they suffered from illness during the daytime. The construction of toilets has therefore provided dignity, safety, and immense relief to rural women, many of whom remain deeply grateful for this change.

Digital payments, too, have emerged as a technological revolution, and much of the credit for their widespread adoption goes to Modi. When digital payment apps were first introduced, several self-styled economists and opposition leaders mocked the initiative. Today, however, even small shopkeepers, artisans, and daily-wage workers use digital transactions with ease. Their countless small payments collectively amount to thousands of crores of rupees every day, serving as a fitting response to those who once dismissed the idea.

Twisha Sharma's death must be thoroughly probed to establish trust in the law

 A young and beautiful girl, Twisha Sharma, lost her life a few days ago in Bhopal, where she was married to an advocate who has been absconding since Twisha's death but has recently surrendered in Jabalpur instead of Bhopal, where he lives with his family. Twisha's mother–in–law has been handling the media and the police. The public wants to know the real story of Twisha's death. While her parents and younger sister lay all the blame on the mother-in-law and her husband, on the other hand, the mother-in-law, Mrs Giribala Singh, a former judge in the District Judiciary of Madhya Pradesh, is quite influential, and she has been passing the buck to her daughter-in-law, Twisha Sharma, for her death.

The mother-in-law, Giribala Singh, alleges that Twisha was schizophrenic and had a split personality. She used to take drugs, although she is reported to have died because of a ligature caused by ropes tied around her neck. Giribal Sigh says that she did it in the moments of extreme depression. However, what Mrs Giribala Singh says must be taken with a pinch of salt. Why have the police not been able to produce even a single prescription slip to suggest that she was undergoing treatment for a split personality? Giribala Singh’s conduct further deepens the cloud of suspicion because she made 40-odd phone calls to the judges and police officers to talk about Twisha’s death, but she still feels shy about talking to the media and other persons.

Be that as it may, this case must be thoroughly probed to come to the bottom of the truth and to restore the confidence of the people in the law and law-enforcing agencies. The allegations of Twisha’s parents and her brother should not be thrown to the wind, made in frustration, as they may prove to be important clues.

Lawyers Must Not Be Oversensitive to Criticism

 It is difficult to understand why some people tried to make a mountain out of a molehill over the Chief Justice of India’s obiter remarks about certain “parasites” and “cockroaches” masquerading as lawyers. The controversy ought to have ended after the CJI promptly clarified his remarks. Judges ordinarily speak through their judgments, and comments made during court proceedings—whether in repartee or in a lighter vein—should not be seized upon to malign a judge merely because he refuses to yield to pressure. Judicial decisions, once in the public domain, may certainly be criticised, but such criticism must remain free from personal attacks or imputations of motive against the judge concerned.

Coming to what Justice Surya Kant observed, it would not be entirely unfair to say that many law colleges in the country deserve closure. More than a decade ago, the then Solicitor General of India, Gopal Subramanium, who was also served temporarily as the  Chairman of the Bar Council of India by virtue of the office he held, introduced and implemented the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), intending to ensure that only those possessing at least a basic knowledge of law and a genuine interest in the profession are enrolled by the State Bar Councils. Initially, the measure did help filter entrants to some extent. While many competent and talented young lawyers continue to join the profession, there has simultaneously been an influx of persons armed with fake degrees from dubious institutions. Counterfeit law colleges and the lax registration systems of some State Bar Councils have enabled numerous fraudulent practitioners to enter the profession.

In many places, it is often remarked—sometimes cynically—that students unable to secure admission elsewhere choose law colleges merely to obtain hostel facilities while preparing for other competitive examinations. Such trends have unfortunately diminished the reputation of the legal profession. Even today, mofussil lawyers are frequently viewed as occupying one of the lowest rungs in the marriage market.

A visit to almost any court reveals overcrowded courtrooms and congested corridors. This, however, is not always a reflection of passion for the profession; in many cases, it is a consequence of widespread unemployment. A few years ago, when vacancies for peons were advertised, dozens of law graduates reportedly applied. When questioned about accepting a Class IV position despite holding law degrees, some candidly replied that at least the job guaranteed a monthly salary sufficient to sustain them, whereas legal practice often failed to cover even the costs of robes and transportation. In many district courts, one can also find touts functioning in the guise of lawyers. Such elements often receive tacit support from sections of the Bar for petty gains, ultimately bringing disrepute to the profession as a whole. There are many other drawbacks. For those who come from good families and are well-connected, the legal profession is like a lottery for them, but for most of the youngsters, this is highly disappointing.

Therefore, remarks made by the CJI in good faith should be viewed as an opportunity for introspection rather than outrage. Constructive criticism aimed at improving the profession ought to be welcomed. After all, the Chief Justice of India is the head of the country’s judicial system. If those at the highest-level refrain from acknowledging systemic defects, who else will initiate the process of reform?

Two hundred years of Hindi Journalism

 Udant Martand (The Rising Sun) was first published in Calcutta (now Kolkata) on 30th May 1826 by Pandit Jugal Kishore Shukla, a lawyer and freedom fighter from Kanpur. Originally a pleader from Kanpur, Shukla moved to Calcutta to practise and earn his livelihood. Calcutta offered the most lucrative opportunities for a legal professional at that time. He dedicated his resources, intellect, and career to the newspaper, advocating for the native Indian population against colonial laws. His decision to launch India's first Hindi weekly newspaper was influenced by several distinct professional and logistical factors.

In the early 19th century, Calcutta was the epicentre of India's nascent print culture. The city possessed the essential resources required to start a newspaper—such as established printing presses, a steady paper supply, and early Devanagari typesetting capabilities—which were entirely unavailable in Kanpur or the wider North-Indian Hindi belt. Thus, Calcutta has the distinction of publishing the first Hindi newspaper from a non-Hindi-speaking area.

While residing in Calcutta, Shukla observed a flourishing media landscape featuring journals in English, Bengali, and Persian/Urdu. He recognised a profound irony: although millions spoke Hindi across the subcontinent, and a significant Hindi-speaking mercantile community lived right in Calcutta (centred around areas like Bara Bazar), they had no printed voice. He is credited with having elevated the language to a medium of formal public discourse. The Marwaris living in Calcutta must be commended for extending all support to Pandit ji for venturing to bring out the newspaper, although it could survive only one and a half years, closing in December 1827 due to the British government's refusal to grant postal free concessions, creating an insurmountable financial strain on the newspaper.

Hindi journalism has made giant strides in the last two hundred years. More than in the print medium, its remarkable presence can be seen in electronic, web, digital, and social media. Hindi has now become a universal language. What to say of India, it is difficult to ignore Hindi even in the most advanced countries of the world. The very purpose of journalism is communication, which the Hindi media is doing superbly. Film, military, and railways have contributed a great deal to the growth of Hindi, but Hindi journalism has been the precursor of it all.

Therefore, it is our solemn duty to remember those rishis like Jugal Kishore Shukla, Pandit Ambika Prasad Vajpayee, and Babu Rao Vishnu Rao Pradakar, who brought recognition to Hindi journalism and helped it grow like a banyan tree.

Indian Federation of Working Journalists pays glowing tributes to the heroes of Hindi journalism on its 200th anniversary.

Has Mamata’s License been Restored?

 

The appearance of Mamata Banerjee in the robes of an advocate at the Calcutta High Court on the 14th of May is very surprising. She may be a law graduate or even enrolled as an advocate with the State Bar Council, but if she has had her licence restored by the State Bar Council in four days, that would be truly surprising. Even the Bar Council of India has sought certified copies of the original records relating to Mamata Banerjee from the State Advocate’s Roll.

Until the 8th of May, she remained the Chief Minister of the State. The Governor then dismissed her government, as neither she nor her party had been returned to power. As an MLA or MP, she could certainly have practised, but as a minister, she could not, as she would then be a public servant. Earlier, before the assembly elections, she appeared before the Supreme Court, but not as a lawyer, rather in a personal capacity. She was allowed to address the court for half an hour, but it was difficult to make head or tail of what she said. At that time, she claimed only to be a law graduate.

Therefore, the State Bar Council must bring forth all facts to inspire the confidence of the people in the advocacy, because presently, many charlatans pose as advocates.

 

Not only the Number of Judges, but AI will be required to revolutionise the Judicial System

 

The Union Cabinet has recently approved a proposal to increase the sanctioned strength of judges in the Supreme Court of India from 34 to 38. The proposal is to be implemented through the bill, which would amend the existing 1956 law governing the Court’s sanctioned strength.

The stated reasons, as published in the newspapers, are rising pendency of cases (reported to be around 92,000–93,000 cases), the need for quicker disposal of matters, enabling more Constitution Benches and regular benches to function simultaneously. This would be the first increase since 2019, when the strength was raised from 32 to 34.

In fact, even this number of 38 will be inadequate, which should be further increased, as now there is no dearth of space or infrastructure. However, the pendency cannot be reduced only by increasing the strength of judges, so long as Artificial Intelligence is not used effectively. For this purpose, the judges, staff members and advocates should be properly trained. It should be compulsory for the Bar Associations to mandatorily train the Advocates. If any advocate is unable to undergo, he/she should not be allowed to remain in the actual practice. Such advocates can be effectively used for other purposes. AI must be made compulsory in law schools and colleges for the benefit of new entrants.

 It is everybody's case that delayed justice amounts to denial of justice, but it should not be hurried justice as well, because that is bound to recoil upon the Bench, the Bar and the Clients. The training in AI must be imparted to all related to the judicial process; otherwise, the judicial system will become a mockery, for which the entire system would be held guilty by posterity. AI will also be able to eradicate large-scale corruption in the judiciary.

 The Supreme Court now handles not only constitutional adjudication but also massive special leave jurisdiction under Article 136, public interest litigation, election disputes, commercial matters, criminal appeals, and service cases. Therefore, increasing the number of judges is almost inevitable.

AI can assist justice but cannot replace judicial reasoning. It may, however, help in identifying precedents, summarising records, detecting inconsistencies, transcription, translation, scheduling, and reducing administrative burdens.