Muzzle Law of Poland: An attack on the Independence of Judiciary
Publisher
Global Views 360
Publication Date
August 16, 2020
URL
Andrzej Duda, the President of Poland | Source: Wojciech Grabowski via Wikimedia
On February 4, 2020 the president of Poland, Andrzej Duda signed a law that prohibits the country’s judiciary to question the appointment of judges by the President and bars them from being involved in political activities. The law also prohibits judges to seek guidance from the EU Court of Justice on appointments by the National Council of Judiciary (NCJ) of Poland.
Opposition parties condemned the law and Supreme Court president Malgorzata Gersdorf termed it as “Muzzle Law”.
In December 2019, the Sejm, the lower house of the Polish parliament passed the bill that would penalize judges who criticize the judicial reforms of the ruling Law and Justice party. It was sent back by the upper house for further discussion and a vote. However Sejm, using its superior power, enacted the bill, which the president signed on February 4, 2020, making it a law in the country.
The SC of Poland had earlier ruled on December 5, 2019 that the NCJ is not an independent body. Again on January 23, 2020 the SC in a ruling termed the appointment of the judges by the NCJ as illegal stating their apprehension that they may not be free from political influence. The Justice Ministry, quite predictably termed the SC verdict as a “serious violation of the law”.
The law has drawn criticism from lawmakers as well as legal scholars across Europe and the European Union. On 11th January 2020, hundreds of judges from across Europe marched in Warsaw to protest against the enacting of the controversial law. Thousands of lawyers and residents joined in with many waving Polish and EU flags as they marched from the SC to the parliament. "We have come here to support the Polish judges but we are not politicians. We are here about the rule of law, not about politics." John MacMenamin, an Irish Supreme Court judge, told reporters.
In February 2020, a group of 44 ICJ Commissioners and Honorary Members along with senior judges, lawyers and legal scholars from across the world released a statement in which they said, “it is clear that the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary, and the capacity of Polish judges to uphold the rule of law are now severely compromised. Judges’ freedom of expression, association and assembly are under immediate threat.”
Ever since it came to power in 2015, The Law and Justice Party of Poland, has been working towards dismantling the independence of the judiciary, terming it judicial reforms. There has been opposition to these actions by the opposition parties, judicial bodies as well as European Union.
EU flags at the European Commission Berlaymont building Brussels, Belgium | Source: Guillaume Périgois via Unsplash
Late in 2017, the European Union had initiated what it called “unprecedented proceedings” against Poland. The move was a response to the worrying reforms in the judiciary that were being enforced by the government. The EU had stated back then that these “systematic threats” could see Poland losing its EU voting rights.
On 29th April, 2020, The EU started a new legal case against the nationalist Polish government in response to the adoption of the “muzzle law”. The EU further added that it was giving Poland two months to address the issues pertaining to the law. “This is a European issue because Polish courts apply European law. Judges from other countries must trust that Polish judges act independently. This mutual trust is the foundation of our single market,” said Vera Jourova, the Czech member of the executive Commission who is responsible for upholding the EU’s democratic values at a news conference.
A few European legal scholars have warned that the developments in Poland are a threat to the entire legal system of the EU. Despite all the criticism and pressure from the EU, the Polish government is yet to respond meaningfully to the growing concerns over the assault on Poland’s judicial system and its potential EU exit.
Support us to bring the world closer
To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.
Does giving the Lieutenant Governor more authoritative power have an impact on India's Federal structure?
On 3rd of February 2021, the NCT bill cleared by cabinet along with 20 other bills proposed to be introduced in the parliamentary session. The amendment was passed on 9th of February in the Rajya Sabha.
“The Bill proposed to amend the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991, in the context of judgment dated 14.02.2019 of Hon’ble Supreme Court (Division bench) in Civil Appeal No 2357 of 2017 and other connected matters.”
The article explains the timeline and the practical implications of the NCT Amendment Act 2021 on the federal structure.
The Centre's amendments to the NCT of Delhi Act, gives more powers to the Lieutenant Governor and Delhi’s Kejriwal government were totally against the amendment as due to their bitter experience with the previous and current LG.
The Arvind Kejriwal government described the NCT Bill, as a murder of constitutional democracy and accused BJP of secretively drafting the amendments so as to govern Delhi in an unconstitutional manner using the LG's office.
The new amendment is expected to now clearly define the powers and functions of the Lieutenant Governor and the Delhi Government based on the 2019 judgement. The amendments add a category of bills, which fall outside the ambit of Delhi legislative assembly and which the Lieutenant Governor must reserve for consideration of the President. This category is supposedly added for the sake of “better governance” and to reduce potential conflicts. The amendments also specify that the elected government needs to send legislative proposals to Lieutenant-Governor (LG) at least 14 days in advance to seek his opinion and avoid any delays.
The tussle between the Delhi government and the Centre reached the Supreme Court 2017. The honourable Supreme court defined the role of the LG in Delhi and ruled that the LG cannot interfere in every decision of the Delhi Government. The tussle between the Union and Delhi government has that Article 239 AA of the Constitution at its core. The Article 239 AA gives Delhi the special recognition of a Union Territory with a Legislative Assembly that has a lieutenant governor as its administrative head.
In July 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra stated that the lieutenant governor’s powers in the National Capital were only limited to land, police and public order.
“The lieutenant governor must work harmoniously with the elected government. The LG is the administrative head but can’t act as an obstructionist”, the bench stated. The supreme court also stressed upon the fact that the power and status of the LG was different from the state governors. They mentioned that the Lieutenant Governor must not be an obstructionist and must work harmoniously with the Delhi government. “There is no room for absolutism and no room for anarchy,” the bench stated. The verdict is not complete yet as the issue of services divided the bench that delivered the order and the matter is now addressed by a three-judge bench on the Supreme Court which has not concluded the hearing yet.
So far, the AAP has argued that former LG Najeeb Jung and the current LG Anil Baijal are undermining the federal structure of the Republic of India by objecting the decisions made by the Delhi government and overruling their authority in bureaucratic matters.
Former LG of Delhi with Prime Minister Modi | Source: Wikimedia
In July 2013, Najeeb Jung took charge as the LG of Delhi and Arvind Kejriwal swore in as the Chief Minister (CM) of Delhi in December 2013. After 49 days of governance, Arvind Kejriwal stepped down as his minority government was unable to pass the anti-corruption legislation due to lack of support provided by other political parties. In February 2015, the Aam Aadmi Party came back to power by a staggering majority of 67 out of 70 seats. However, the party faced a higher veto obstruction while making several decisions. In May 2015, LG Jung annulled all the bureaucratic postings by Delhi government and stated that power to appoint and transfer rests with him.
In June 2015, five officers of Bihar Police joined Delhi Government’s Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB). Jung rejected their employment at the ACB claiming that he was the person in charge even before the new amendment. In the same month, the Delhi government replaced the Home Secretary Dharam Pal and Jung obstructed the decision by vetoing the order. When the AAP government decided to hike circle rates in Delhi for agricultural land, the former LG Jung objected to the decision although the State government has the complete authority to take such decisions. In another instance in 2016, Jung set up a panel to probe over 400 files related to decisions taken by Delhi government. The CM of Delhi deemed it to be illegal.
Kejriwal and the AAP government blamed the former LG and Prime Minister Narendra Modi for the CBI raids of his office, FIRs filed by ACB against Arvind Kejriwal and former Delhi CM Late Sheila Dikshit in water tanker scam, restriction of control on appointing state bureaucrats and general obstruction of decisions.
Anil Baijal, the now LG of Delhi with Defence Minister Rajnath Singh | Source: Wikimedia
On 31st December 2016, Anil Baijal swore in as the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi. While the tussle between AAP and the LG continued, the alleged assault of Chief Secretary Anshu Prakash by AAP leaders at CM Arvind Kejriwal’s residence in February 2018 gave a new momentum to the tug of war.
Following the incident, the IAS association reportedly skipped routine meetings with ministers as a mark of protest but claimed that they have not suspended work. Before that, on December 2017, the turf war between Kejriwal and Baijal reached Parliament, with a Rajya Sabha member claiming that the CM was being treated like a “peon”.
In 2018, the AAP government demanded LG’s approval for the proposal for doorstep delivery of rations and also demanded grant of complete statehood for Delhi and installation of CCTVs. Baijal did not approve both the demands directly and further complicated the process. Kejriwal stated that the LG rejected the demands over “petty-politics”.
In June 2018,Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal sat in a nine-day long hunger strike at the Lieutenant Governor’s office against the “strike” by IAS officers and Kejriwal wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, requesting him, “with folded hands”, to intervene and end the agitation of the IAS officers.
The Aam Aadmi Party argues that the BJP is hell bent on ruining efficient governance of Delhi through the LG. Critics believe that the tussle has failed the federal system of our Democracy.
Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Sikri and Justice Khanwilkar, in their written opinion devoted a significant portion to explain the understanding of federalism, and its fusion with democracy to achieve an “egalitarian social order”. According to our Constitutional scheme neither the States isolated islands, with their distinct vision, nor the Union government can make decisions that are meant to affect the interests of the States. The Chief Justice highlighted that there should be a sincere effort to avoid conflict and not encroach on each other spheres in a collaborative framework of federalism. To exercise authority, “there should be perception of mature statesmanship so that the constitutionally bestowed responsibilities are shared by them.” To attain the ideal balance in a federal structure, the Chief Justice suggested the Union and the States to have “mutual respect and deference to actualise the workability of a constitutional provision.”
Collaborative federalism involves healthy negotiation and coordination between the Union and State governments to ensure that the governance works within the circumference of the Constitution and in harmony.
