New Delhi: At the launch of Supreme Court and the Indian Economy, Attorney General for India R Venkataramani had both a complaint and an invitation. According to him, an hour was not enough to unpack the complexities of jurisprudence and economics, and he looked forward to a much longer private discussion.
“I wish I could talk more about it. It’s absorbing, inviting, exciting,” Venkataramani said about the book by Pradeep S Mehta of Consumer Unity & Trust Society (CUTS) International.
Mehta’s book examines the impact of six Supreme Court judgments on economic policy, privatisation, and environmental regulations. The book argues that the Supreme Court’s decisions must consider socio–economic realities and apply structured economic analysis to all its judgments.
Calling for greater accountability and transparency, the panellists — Venkataramani, Mehta, Lalit Bhasin (president of the Society of Indian Law Firms), R Sudarshan (dean of Jindal School of Government and Public Policy), and Aruna Sharma (former secretary to the government of India)—lauded the work of the Supreme Court but noted that there is still a long way to go regarding how its judgments impact people’s lives.
“The Supreme Court has not got a glimpse of what they’re doing. Apologies to the court for saying so,” Venkataramani said.
“Everything the Supreme Court does has a social and economic impact. We need a national institution that can work towards mainstreaming and integrating law and economics, and policy and judicial administration,” he added.
The guests attending the launch event on 8 August at The Lalit hotel included Rajya Sabha MP and former CAG officer Amar Patnaik, former Competition Commission of India chairperson Ashok Chawla, and former World Bank executive director for India Dhanendra Kumar. The event was organised by CUTS International, the Society of Indian Law Firms, and the CUTS Institute for Regulation and Competition.
“On a subject of such vast importance, we deserve a day-long discussion, which requires engagement of not just lawyers and communities but a cross–section of people whose lives are affected by what the Supreme Court starts saying at 10:30 in the morning every day,” said Venkataramani.
“Today is worrisome because we’re talking about sustainable development, not just economic development. If you ask Karl Marx, he may have some revised thoughts. It’s in that context that we have the emergence of new institutions domestically and globally—and what they can mean for the common woman and man.”
Also read: SC judges agree climate change is a threat. That’s where consensus ended at a book launch
Environment, economy, equity
The book dissects six landmark judgments, including the 2016 ban on liquor sales along state and national highways, the 2014 cancellation of coal block allocations since 1993, and the 2012 2G spectrum case. Of the six judgments, only one — Shivashakti Sugars Limited v Shree Renuka Sugar Limited in 2017 — cited the importance of integrating law and economics.
The increasingly complicated questions emerging from the intermixing of environmental, economic, and equity concerns motivated Mehta to write the book.
“As a public institution, the judiciary is lacking a lot — not that other institutions are [entirely] coherent or cogent,” he said.
“I appeal to you, Venkatramani, to have some kind of orientation on economic impact for judges. No one really does a cost-benefit analysis of what these decisions lead to. Impact assessments are very important, even post-facto. That’s how people will understand and learn,” Mehta added, addressing the Attorney General directly.
Venkatramani underscored the importance of Mehta’s book and similar literature, hoping that the topic will soon become part of legal curricula in law schools and judicial institutions. He reflected on his own experience in law and how he observed that the court wasn’t entering policy-making deliberations.
Ultimately, he noted that the legal fraternity began to invite the court into a “policy-making avatar of a different kind,” expanding the court’s capabilities and prompting it to break away from a colonial, set-in-stone system.
“Adam Smith has been rewritten by the Supreme Court!” Venkatramani exclaimed.
He emphasised that questions of equity and environmental sustainability become even more critical as India enters its next phase of development.
“India is not a Big Brother. India believes in equal regard and equal reward for all. How do we ensure the great dreams of equality enshrined in our Constitution? How do we make that possible? By making institutions more transparent and accountable,” he said.
Also read: Foreign policy resonating among more Indians in 2nd & 3rd tier towns of India, says EAM Jaishankar
Bridge between policy and judiciary
The panel discussed how the gap between judiciary and policy could be bridged by educating jurists about the economic impact of their judgments.
Describing the situation as “a sorry state of affairs”, former government secretary Aruna Sharma noted that courts have been passing judgments without awareness of their economic impact. This creates tension between policy at the implementation level and judicial interpretation of laws.
“In the garb of a Supreme Court judgment, the only option is a knee–jerk reaction to amend the law,” she said.
Jindal dean R Sudarshan pointed out that the civil law system has auditors of the court—similar to a performance appraisal department. He suggested that the same framework should be extended within the judiciary to assess the quality, impact, and influence of judgements.
“There’s always been tension between policy and judiciary. Even before the ink was dry on the Constitution, it had to be amended because of the Supreme Court’s land reform judgment,” Sudarshan said.
“We need more of this kind of critique. Unfortunately, many judges have thin skin, and there’s the issue of contempt of court.”
Echoing Mehta, Venkataramani also emphasised the importance of having a coherent system that examines law and economics—from his perspective, “from inside what an Attorney General can do and what the Supreme Court is failing to do.”
“Judges want to do justice. But what is justice? Declaring a good law may have a bad effect,” Venkataramani said.
“Unless institutions catch up in their understanding, we’ll be lagging behind. We’re in the Stone Age of law and economy; I wish we could move towards a golden age.”
(Edited by Aamaan Alam Khan)