Media, judiciary and the laws aimed at people's empowerment

-SANJOG MAHESHWARI
Thanks to the Media-shyness of judiciary many cases, in which judicial pronouncements and decisions lay down principled and lawful guidelines for the Govt. agencies to follow in all similar matters, never see the light of the day as the case files gather dust in the dusty confines of the Courts’ record rooms. While knowing the law is important- ignorance of the law being no excuse- what matters much more is the knowledge and information about how the Courts of Law interpret it in the context of various law-suits. And this can come to a common man only if it is disseminated through media; both print and electronic. For this to happen, a healthy interaction between the judiciary and media is necessary. The Courts of Law, therefore, must share their verdicts and judgments delivered in the law-suits with the media to enable it to play out its role of the watch-dog of democracy more effectively. These two must join hands to rein-in the wayward Executive which, of late, has developed the uncanny tendency to assume absolute power in all matters with impunity.
To a common man, his nodding acquaintance with law as a consumer generally remains restricted to the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and as a information seeker to the Right to Information Act -2005. In the case of former, a three-tier Consumer Grievance Redressal apparatus, the Consumer Courts at District , State and National levels work to deliver their verdicts and judgments in the Consumer Disputes cases. The jurisdiction of a court is determined by the pecuniary and the territorial status of a case. Appeal against the decision of a district forum lies with the State Commission and that of the State Commission with the National Commission.
As about 80% of the total services is provided by the powerful Government-owned or controlled agencies, instrumentalities and bodies, the cases of deficiency in service and dereliction of duty against such bodies, in particular, generate lot of public-interest. Since, their services by and large, are of abjectly low standard, invariably tempered with arrogance and completely devoid of professionalism, the cases against them get piled up in spite of the fact that a very large body of litigation-shy Indian consumers prefers to suffer in silence rather than to agitate the law for the redresssal of grievances against the powerful Govt. owned or controlled agencies. And it makes sense because such cases invariably turn out to be painfully long-drawn and costly affair. Similarly, there is no remedy against the wrong-doings and frauds perpetrated by the sharks and whales of big business world- builders, tycoons and industrialists- as the justice is hard to come by unless one is Somebody. Any litigation against them, per-se, is an extremely agonizing and disturbing nightmarish experience particularly for a Mr. Nobody. To him there is no light even at the end of the tunnel for the simple reason that he does not have that kind of money, time, resources, political power and energy to fight the long-drawn legal battle which such cases would invariably entail as the tycoons can easily afford a battery of lawyers, unlimited black-money and intimidating musclemen. Against this formidable composition an ordinary litigant has absolutely no chance of getting justice. Plainly speaking, in practical terms this law seldom, if ever, serves the purpose for which it was intended.
In the absence of the knowledge and information about the law-suits earlier decided on the subject of his interest and litigation, a consumer remains a handicapped loser all the way. Pitted against an all powerful, hugely resourceful, cash rich Govt. agency or business tycoon, supported by highly qualified lawyers, he fights a losing battle and does not get even a slice of the reliefs, if and when granted, unless he too happens to be somebody. For example, way back in 2004, the NGO Common-Cause under the dynamic stewardship of it’s the then Director Late Sh. H.D. Shourie filed a writ petition in the Hon’ble Delhi High Court contending that the installation, maintenance and replacement of water meters is the duty and the sole responsibility exclusively of the service provider in this case the government-owned Delhi Jal Board and challenged the Delhi Jal Board notification requiring the consumers to install the meters privately at their cost, being against the letter and spirit of the Delhi Jal Board Act. Moreover, Delhi Jal Board and, not the lay consumer, has the necessary expertise for the job” the writ contended. Every other service provider such as power Distcoms install, maintain, replace, as the case may be, their meters then why not DJB?ending that installation, maintenance a Thanks to this media-shyness of the judiciary, five years down the line, consumers are as ignorant about their rights in this respect as ever before and the govt. owned Delhi Jal Board merrily goes round arm-twisting the consumers into getting the meters privately installed. While the meters installed by the DJB last for many years, those privately installed are reported ‘defective’ or ‘faulty’ within months of their installation necessitating their frequent replacement at close intervals. It goes without saying that a poor consumer finds the whole thing quite costly and wearisome and, therefore, prefers to pay the inflated bills raised on the basis of presumptive average consumption. It brings us to an another closely related issue that merits thoughtful consideration: Can any service providing agency levy any charge, apart from the service charge, on a commodity it neither owns nor produces? Water is the Mother Nature’s gift to the people given to them as freely and in great abundance as her other two gifts: sunshine and air. It is the people who own it. As the potable water of the natural resources and water bodies gets polluted and has to be treated to again make it potable for domestic consumption, levying of service-charge for its treatment and supply to homes may be justified but certainly not the consumptive charge on its domestic consumption. While the fiduciary responsibility of the government to protect and keep the water bodies and resources clean and in excellent condition all the time is not waived, levying of the service charge on domestic supply of water can be justified, levying of the consumptive charge on its domestic consumption and thereby commoditizing it is grossly unfair and against all the canons of natural justice. Owner forced into paying for the consumption of his own commodity! What a perfidy!

According to the U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development, human beings currently use only about half of the 12,500 cubic kl. of freshwater that is readily available from groundwater, rivers and lakes. Globally neither is there a water shortage nor will there be one any time in the future. Nature has been extremely generous to us in India. We are doubly blessed with more than 350 million hectare meters of rainfall every year coupled with a vast network of great perennial rivers, lakes and water bodies. Why then are we suffering interminably from this “scarcity amidst plenty” syndrome? Very obviously, the main culprits are: Gross mismanagement, rampant corruption, lack of professionalism, unplanned development and so forth. Should a common man be penalized for the lapses of the Government? In this mad race for raising the GDP, the immediate causality is Sustainable Development and ecological balance.

Further, the domestic supply should be seen quite distinct from the Industrial and Commercial use. While in the case of former there could be absolutely no justification for the levying of consumptive charge on water, in the case of later, it is justified. Service providing Govt. agencies, are very well aware of the fact that their services are miles behind the normal expectations even of an otherwise much-tolerant Indian consumer let alone the international standards. This awareness of the deplorable quality of their services makes them scary even before any measure for consumer-empowerment is contemplated let alone initiated. No wonder, they don’t want Legislature, or for that matter Media or Judiciary, to make them more accountable to consumers and resist any move for consumer-empowerment tooth and nail. Not only this, the establishment itself does not want expeditious disposal of such cases where a consumer is pitted against a Government service providing agency and they have many tricks up their sleeves to keep the Consumer Courts under a handicap. Even very simple cases go on dragging much after the judgment vindicating a consumer’s stand is delivered as it takes another long stretching legal battle before a common consumer can even think of getting some of the reliefs granted. In the meanwhile the poor fellow is pressurized for consenting to an unfavourable agreement.
The then Chief Justice of England , Mr. Justice Coke, did not find it necessary to mince words, when as early as in 1615, he ruled that the powers and functions of the courts were “not only to correct errors but all acts of misgovernance, so that no wrong or injury, neither private nor public, can be done”. The judges of the higher courts in this country have also seen nothing wrong in carrying forward the culture of assertiveness, chastising the executive whenever they spotted them malfunctioning or behaving against the Law of the land” in their judicial pronouncements. Perhaps, herein is a lesson or two for the Information Commissioners as well who perform duties of semi-judicial nature under the R.T.I. Act and are responsible for ensuring that an information-seeker is invariably provided with every bit of correct and complete information and the certified copies of all the documents he requires, if otherwise not barred by the law, to his entire satisfaction.. Attempts by the public authorities at abridging the rights either of the consumers or the information-seekers under these empowering Acts i.e. The Consumer Protection Act-1986 and The Right to Information Act-2005 respectively, should be firmly curbed by meting out deterrent penalties and punishments to the defaulters. Otherwise, it will not be possible to meet the ends of justice.


SANJOG MAHESHWARI