Please Read The Statutory Declaration Carefully Before Signing: Fill & Download for Free

The question asks if it is LEGAL to drive at 80mph, under certain specific circumstances, even though the posted speed limit is 65mph: And the short answer is Yes and No. There are two answers to this question because there are two general categories of law that govern the activity of motorist speed. The vast majority of the times, these two categories of law are incongruent or otherwise in conflict with each other, as I will demonstrate with examples later on. However, after reading this article closely, you will be better informed on how the law works in the USA.The first category of law is known as "The Basic Speed Rule", and has been the preeminent legal doctrine, adjudication standard, and guidance for motorists since 1926; when a committee under Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover compiled the first national Uniform Vehicle Code as a model for traffic laws in all states. The Basic Speed Rule states: NO PERSON SHALL DRIVE A VEHICLE GREATER THAN IS REASONABLE AND PRUDENT UNDER THE CONDITIONS AND HAVING REGARD TO THE ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL HAZARDS THEN EXISTING (UVC 11-801). To fully comprehend the Basic Speed Rule, we must understand its three variable components: 1) “Reasonable and prudent”; 2) “Conditions”; 3) “Hazards”.“Reasonable and Prudent” means in law “SAFE”. But we can further define what constitutes “SAFE”, because scientists have determined that safety (accident risk) has a parabolic correlation with speed. From a properly plotted parabolic risk curve, we can see that the 85th percentile speed has the lowest risk. A traffic engineering study is the only accepted method for determining the 85th Percentile per 1988 MUTCD 2B-10. Therefore, because “reasonable and prudent” means SAFE, and SAFE is calculated as the 85th percentile in a traffic engineering study: We begin to appreciate why the “reasonable and prudent” standard appearing in UVC 11-801 is necessarily predicated on traffic engineering studies.“CONDITIONS” include weather (wind, rain, sleet, snow, fog, etc.), road surface, road width, traffic volume, contrast and visibility, extreme temperatures, children, pedestrians, bicycles, etc. From these examples, it is clear that roadway “conditions” are infinitely variable and changing, and thus cannot be known in advance.“HAZARDS” include road construction, disabled motorists, emergency vehicles, safety cones, emergency flares, roadway defects, debris on the roadway, animal crossings, etc. From these examples, it is clear that “actual and potential hazards then existing” are infinitely variable and changing, and thus cannot be known in advance.From the foregoing analysis, we have learned that the proper application and enforcement of the Basic Speed Rule necessarily requires three things: 1) A comprehensive traffic engineering study; 2) A real-time assessment of the CONDITIONS on the roadway; 3) A real-time assessment of (potential) HAZARDS on the roadway. So, if we want to answer the question of whether it is LEGAL to drive 80mph under certain circumstances, as it relates to the application and enforcement of the Basic Speed Rule, then we need to consider the above three requirements. And here are the facts regarding the above three requirements:1) COMPREHENSIVE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING STUDY: There is no speed limit sign anywhere in the USA that has always been in conformance with the periodically revised Federal DOT MUTCD standards for performing and maintaining comprehensive traffic engineering studies, using nationally recognized traffic engineering standards encoded under federal regulations going back to the 1988 MUTCD, in the calculus of the posted speed limit. (For any Licensed Traffic Engineers who might disagree, I would ask that at a MINIMUM, you be prepared to provide documentation proving that your speed limit has always been in conformance with each edition of the MUTCD. This would include the mandatory prerequisite study that demonstrates there is an accident risk on a given section of roadway that can only be cured by the proper posting of an R2-1 safety device. Otherwise, please do not waste my time, or try to confuse others with non-sense.)2) CONDITIONS: A traffic officer may cite you for not driving a speed that is safe for conditions, regardless of the speed posted on a speed limit sign, only if he/she can articulate precisely what was unsafe about your driving. Example: An officer cannot simply testify that it was raining, and you were driving 65mph in a 55mph zone. Those facts say nothing about whether you were driving safe for conditions. However, if the officer testifies that your vehicle was hydroplaning and swerving out of your lane during a rain storm while you were driving 55mph in a 65mph zone, then those facts MAY satisfy evidence of driving a speed that was not "reasonable and prudent under the conditions". I say "MAY", because there are many other factors to consider, such as the competence of the driver, the type and condition of tires on the vehicle, the type of vehicle, the degree of swerving, traffic engineer findings, etc. Unfortunately, traffic enforcement officers in the USA have little or no high level training on this subject.3) HAZARDS: In the same way that traffic officers are not given high level training for understanding roadway conditions, they receive little or no training for the proper identification of when hazards and speed are an unsafe combination.If you do not understand anything else from this article, I'm hoping that you will take the time to understand traffic engineering studies. So before we continue, let's touch on the basic requirements, methods, and documentation of a traffic engineering study. Federal regulations require that a traffic engineer perform a very basic statistical calculation to determine the speed limit that is posted on the R2-1 safety device (speed limit sign). The traffic engineer covertly measures the speed of traffic during free flowing conditions, and records those observations so that they can later be published in the final engineering report. Ideally, the sample will include thousands of observations taken at various points of weekdays, weeknights, and weekends during free flowing conditions. The engineer then calculates the 85th percentile speed of the sample. As an example, let's say the engineer measured the speed of 100 cars, and then sorted the speed from lowest to highest: The 85th percentile speed will be the speed of the 85th observation on the list. The 85th percentile is important, because that is the speed of the SAFEST vehicle i.e. the vehicle having the lowest probability of being involved in an accident or crash. The engineer is then required to round up from the 85th percentile to the nearest 5mph (MUTCD 1988). Under certain circumstances, the engineer may round down to the nearest 5mph, if certain circumstances exist such as hazards. The engineer publishes their findings and recommendations, including all data observations obtained, in a final comprehensive report. This is required for each and every section of roadway that uses R2-1 safety devices. However, a prerequisite study is required that indicates and documents an above average accident risk for the section of roadway under review; and, the study must provide evidence and support for the conclusion that accidents can be reduced by posting an R2-1 safety device (speed limit sign).We can now answer the question of whether it is legal to drive 100mph, in the flow of traffic, with a speed limit of 65mph "within the context of the Basic Speed Rule". First, the question does not assume or give any evidence that the driver is doing anything unsafe; or that there are aberrant conditions, or substantial hazards existing. What we do know is that the driver is driving with the flow of traffic, which roughly equates to the 50th percentile speed, which is less than the safest speed of the 85th percentile. So, we know that the driver is actually driving a speed that is less than the SAFEST possible speed. In this scenario, with speed as the only factor in question, we know that the motorist is driving a speed that is reasonable and prudent for the conditions. Thus, the answer to the question is unequivocally "YES", because the motorist is in compliance with the Basic Speed Rule.Before we answer the second part of the question, i.e. the question as it pertains to the second category of law under consideration, I will preempt any attempts toward impeaching the Basic Speed Rule. This preemptive exercise is necessary, because the vast majority of Americans are ignorant of the Basic Speed Rule, its history, and why it is important. So, let's establish some basic facts regarding the Basic Speed Rule.#1) The Basic Speed Rule, promulgated and codified under a federal regulation known as Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC) 11-801, is the law of the land. The UVC was adopted by Congress under the Highway Safety Act 1966, for the purpose of establishing adjudication standards for all states to follow, and has the force and effect of LAW:Section 1A.11 Relation to Other PublicationsStandard:To the extent that they are incorporated by specific reference, the latest editions of the following publications, or those editions specifically noted, shall be a part of this Manual:25. "Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC) and Model Traffic Ordinance," 2000 Edition (National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances)#2) California is the only state that attempts to comply with Federal Regulation UVC 11-801. This is easily verified by reviewing California Vehicle Code (CVC) 22350:CVC 22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.Amended Ch. 252, Stats. 1963. Effective September 20, 1963.There is only one minor difference between CVC 22350 and UVC 11-801, and that is that CVC 22350 replaces HAZARDS with “safety of persons or property”. But taken on the whole, CVC 22350 is substantively the same as UVC 11-801, and is a model for enforcing and adjudicating R2-1 safety devices in compliance with Federal law. And you will notice that California adopted the Basic Speed Rule effective September 20, 1963, just a few years before the Basic Speed Rule became the law of the land i.e. Federal Law. To this day, California traffic officers continue to write millions of traffic tickets under CVC22350 every year.#3) The Basic Speed Rule language appears in the vehicle code statutes of all 50 states.#4) Prior to the passage of the federal fuel crisis speed limit of 55 mph in 1974, the Basic Speed Rule was the de facto standard in all 50 states in the USA.#5) Prior to 1974, some states such as Nevada and Montana did not have a maximum speed limit. Speeding tickets written on highways in those states were based purely on a violation of the Basic Speed Rule, because highway speed limits were not posted in those states.#6) After the fuel crisis 55mph speed limit was repealed by Congress in 1996, for approximately 3 years, Montana did not have maximum speed limits for its highways and interstates. However, Montana highway patrol continued to write tickets for violations of the Basic Speed Rule.STATUTORY SPEED LIMITSNow, we can answer the second part of our question as it relates to the category of speed limit laws known as "statutory speed limits". A statutory speed limit is a legislative decree for speed limits to be posted according to the road type. For example, California has CVC 22349 for speed limits on highways and interstates, to be posted at 55, 60, or 65 mph, depending on the type of highway. California also has CVC 22356 "No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than 70 miles per hour, as posted."-for interstates that meet certain prescribed conditions appearing in the statute.By the way: Although Legislators have no background in traffic engineering or roadway safety, when they pass statutory speed limit laws, they are replacing the traffic engineers' determination of the 85th percentile safest speed with their own INVENTED NUMERIC. This has disastrous consequences for roadway safety. Conservative estimates are that several thousand deaths (5,000+) occur every year because of under posted speed limits. After Petersen published his findings supporting this conclusion in the early 1990's, the federal government refused to fund any further speed limit safety studies.But let's answer the second part of the question, as it relates in the context of statutory speed limits.If the speed limit is posted as 65mph, and you are travelling ANY speed higher than 65mph, the officer has probable cause to arrest you under the relevant state statute. Period. No exceptions. No defense allowed. As a matter of law, there is no allowable margin of error.In California, the relevant state statute is CVC 22349 or CVC 22356. Theoretically, the officer could also cite you under CVC 22350, but California has anti-speed trap laws that allow you to appear in court to defend yourself. Under CVC 22350, you simply appear in court and ask to see the relevant traffic engineering survey; and if the prosecution does not produce a certified copy of the engineering study, your case will be dismissed upon request. Since California does not do any substantive engineering studies for its highways, your case would be easy to defend, which is why you are not likely to receive a ticket under CVC 22350 by the California Highway Patrol.Conclusion - The answer to the second part of the question requires an understanding of the two legal standards in the USA: The Basic Speed Rule versus Statutory Speed Limits. Taking the question exactly as it is stated, and with the above points in mind, the answer to the question is as follows:It is legal to drive 80mph under the Basic Speed Rule, but illegal to drive 80mph within the context of the statutory speed limit.Unfortunately, the vast majority of times, these two legal standards are in conflict. In other words: Motorists are cited for speeding when they are, as a matter of fact, driving safely. Perhaps the most shocking fact is that the majority of speeding tickets, approximately 90% of all speeding tickets, are written to drivers who are driving at the safest possible speeds i.e. 75th percentile to 95th percentile.Another shocking fact is that mortalities actually INCREASE substantially when speed limits are under posted. Writing tickets generates a lot of revenue for the government, but this means that politicians and police officers are killing motorists: I call this the "Highway Death Tax". And it needs to end. This is why I created the Motorist Union.There is one additional point that I'd like to make concerning the constitutional rights of motorists. The use of INVENTED NUMERICS to arrest motorists is unconstitutional for many reasons. In the interest of brevity, I will focus only on the 4th Amendment:The US Supreme Court decided in Whren vs. U.S. that probable cause is a necessary prerequisite for any traffic stop:The Fourth Amendment guarantees "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." Temporary detention of individuals during the stop of an automobile by the police, even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose, constitutes a "seizure" of "persons" within the meaning of this provision. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653 (1979); United States v. Martinez Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 556 (1976); United States v. Brignoni Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878 (1975). An automobile stop is thus subject to the constitutional imperative that it not be "unreasonable" under the circumstances. As a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred. See Prouse, supra, at 659; Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 109 (1977) (per curiam)In the context of a speeding violation, we assert that the legal test for probable cause turns on the adjudication standard set by Congress i.e. the Basic Speed Rule of UVC 11-801. Simply stated, if a motorist is driving in a “reasonable and prudent” manner, there is no probable cause to arrest them. States cannot prove that their statutory speed limits do not target “reasonable and prudent” drivers, because their regulatory standard has no probative factual, legal, or engineering foundation; therefore, the regulatory standard enforced under statutory speed limits results in an unknown number of arrests that are made in the absence of probable cause: A clear violation of the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution (emphasis).More importantly, we argue that any stop that is made solely for violating a statutory speed limit (sic), in the absence of any probative empirical, scientific, or engineering evidence that justifies the statutory speed limit, is necessarily pretextual. Numerous US Supreme Court cases, including Whren vs. U.S., have made it clear that pretextual arrests violate the 4th Amendment requirement of “probable cause”.The essence of our argument here is that if the numeric limit (and/or its enforcement threshold) are “spurious”, then the “probable cause” to arrest is also “spurious”. When we say “spurious”, we mean there is no probative empirical, scientific, or engineering justification.As to any argument that the wholesale violation of 4th Amendment protections from illegal seizure should continue in the interest of custom, established practice, or stare decisis, we turn to the Supreme Court decision of Arizona v Gant; where the unconstitutional search powers granted to police officers vis-à-vis New York v Belton was overturned:“The doctrine of stare decisis is of course “essential to the respect accorded to the judgments of the Court and to the stability of the law,” but it does not compel us to follow a past decision when its rationale no longer withstands “careful analysis.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 577 (2003). We have never relied on stare decisis to justify the continuance of an unconstitutional police practice. And we would be particularly loath to uphold an unconstitutional result in a case that is so easily distinguished from the decisions that arguably compel it.”If we compare the statutory enforcement thresholds of the several states, we find some states using 55 MPH on interstates (Oregon), and some states using thresholds as high as 85 MPH (Texas). And there is no probative empirical, scientific, or engineering justification for any of them, because none of the several states set their highway and interstate speed limits based on the “reasonable and prudent” standard of UVC 11-801. Therefore, we argue that these statutory speed limits must be declared arbitrary and capricious, pretextual, and unconstitutional after a “careful analysis”.It is time for all states to articulate how/why the “spurious” numbers of 55-85 MPH establishes “probable cause” that motorists are violating the “reasonable and prudent” adjudication standard set by Congress under UVC 11-801. There are limited ways that the states can prove that their INVENTED NUMERIC thresholds are not spurious, such as empirical data, scientific studies, and engineering covenants that support their contention. But this is where things become “sticky”.Assuming arguendo that a single state such as California can show that its regulatory standard of 70/75 MPH is THE threshold that properly establishes violations of the “reasonable and prudent” standard, “probable cause” for arrest, no rebuttable defenses, etc.: In that scenario, the US DOT must explain why the other 49 states are not using the 70/75 MPH thresholds. After all, the Highway Safety Act of 1966 requires uniformity of application, expectation, and adjudication.The bottom line is this: More than 50 million speeding tickets are written every year, and there is absolutely no probable cause for over 99% of these arrests. How long will Americans continue drinking the Kool-Aid?If you would like to help put an end to the non-sense of statutory speed limits, then please donate to the Motorist Union at the Motorist Union paypal account. And please educate as many motorists with this information as you can. Your life, or the life of someone you love, may depend on it.Richard ColterPresident - Motorist Union

Technically, no. But whatever we think of Brexit, it’s now, and forever, irrelevant to all ongoing issues people are trying to associate with Brexit.In turn this is because Brexit is history. Brexit happened. On 31st January. It’s over folks. Everyone should grow up and stop arguing.Remainers: YOU LOST. GET OVER IT.Leavers: YOU WON: GET OVER IT.I trust you can all understand these words (without requiring slower and louder shouting just because you’re a foreigner).To everyone who now continues to whine on about how the UK is better than the EU, or the EU is better than the UK, or that we have our independence, or we don’t have independence, or we’ve taken back control, or we haven’t, or “it wasn’t the Brexit we voted for”, etc ad nauseam, I say:Carefully consider whether you’re in effect practising deceit and/or dishonesty to the detriment of the nation (in fairness, I accept our echo-chambers might make it difficult for us to realize it); andYou’re playing dog-whistle politics, whichever supposed “side” you’re on; andYou’re missing everything that’s really going on under the hood.What’s really going on under the hood? Reality, of course!Are we in, or will we be in, a better or worse state than before? Who cares? It doesn’t matter now. I might say thirty one and a half angels can dance on the head of a pin. I might even hold that opinion until my dying day. But whether I’m right or wrong, that fact (if it be a fact) can never change the reality of Brexit, maybe in part because the angels all emigrated from English pins a while back anyway, but mainly because Brexit is done.Example du jour: the government is all over the CJEU like a broken record, wittering on day after day that it will play no part in UK law, politics, life, Mr J’s divorces / dreams, etc. Insanely, the CJEU suddenly named as the big red line, lately perhaps the biggest, this week at least. We could ask why they’re suddenly obsessed with it now that Brexit is done? Too late!!! We also could ask why they’re obsessed with putting future trade deals into the political mainstream as somehow relevant to Brexit, now that Brexit is done? Too late!!! But such questions would be impolite. So why do we keep on moaning about these red lines du jour (the Aussies have a useful phrase for this: “pommy whingers”)? After all, red lines are absolute and can’t be crossed can they? So why do we keep moaning about them? They’re baked into Mr J’s deal, aren’t they? So we refuse to retreat from Mr J’s deal, don’t we?What a load of… yes, well, let’s not be impolite. Let’s just say it doesn’t actually matter whether anything the government says happens to be true, or happens to be false: because not one word of it is relevant to reality.So what is reality in the context of this example?We all know what Mr J’s Deal says about the CJEU, don’t we? Well ok - perhaps not quite everyone. Yes, Mr Gove, I know you haven’t bothered to read it, otherwise you would have realized you’re the Designated Scapegoat for Mr J’s deal and would kept your mouth firmly shut since January, wouldn’t you?So here’s some homework for you, Mr Gove, with which you can save yourself. Here, for you to read, is the Real Deal, Mr J’s Brexit deal in all its glory: AGREEMENT on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community. Which is, of course a binding treaty, actionable both expressly and (under public international law) impliedly (including via the CJEU); and in ways that confer legal rights upon many, many individuals and institutions to which we have agreed to subordinate ourselves - some of which were brought into existence only by the Agreement.No, Mr Gove. I mean read the damn thing. Yourself. Don’t just get lawyers to answer your stupid dog-whistle questions, because you’ll only get stupid dog-whistle answers. Lawyers function exactly like computers: GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out). And you’re a clever fellow, Mr Gove. This’ll be useful for your next Oxford Union debate on the CJEU’s impact on the UK before and after 2020. Here’s your quick 15-minute Withdrawal Agreement Examination.It’s simple, Mr Gove. Count the number of instances the CJEU appears in the document, Mr Gove. And classify them as you go, Mr Gove. Classify them (best guess, you don’t have to go all lawyerish on us) as material to each of three categories:CJEU in context of preliminary references binding on the UK in 2020;CJEU in context of preliminary references binding on the UK after 2020; andirrelevant/neutral;Oh? Really, Mr Gove? Finished already? Your total count is 69? Ok. Divided between:14 instances of CJEU in context of preliminary references binding on the UK in 2020;38 instances of CJEU in context of preliminary references binding on the UK after 2020; and17 as irrelevant/neutral;Very well, Mr Gove, I’ll now address your union-strength list of grievances and objections to this exercise:The British people have had quite enough of experts. Yes, Mr Gove, you’ve said that before, indeed for the last four years. Sorry, but I’m not calling you an expert by asking for your expertise in anything, beyond reading, arithmetic and comprehension of dates. Really? The British people have had quite enough of reading, ‘rithmetic, and dates? Sorry, Mr Gove, I’m going to overrule that objection. Even if you’re right.You don’t understand some of the Articles, or they’re ambiguous? Well spotted! My personal favorite is Article 71, with maybe a dozen different (doubtless sensible) alternatives to what (I think) it actually says! Bonus marks!Yes, a few of them might be dependent on legal construction, so we won’t hold you to exact classification counts - trends will do.Yes, I agree a few of the 38 are purely “edge” cases such as the sovereign bases, but hey, they still count, so you got those right again, well done.What’s that? some of the 38 don’t count because they were in Theresa’s deal, with reliance upon the CJEU by EU citizens in the UK until 2029 generally? Oh, you mean the whole of Part Two aka the seventeen primary “Apartheid Articles”. You’re sort of right, but actually the CJEU will be in the frame for them until 2034/2035, when the last cases run through the system. So you’re saying they don’t count because they were in Theresa’s deal? Overruled. Sorry, Mr Gove, you’re not allowed to pick and choose which parts of the Agreement you’re going to uphold. Cakeism was exactly how we got into this mess in the first place.Oh. So now you say they don’t count because they apply only to EU citizens, and not with UK nationals? Oh, Mr Gove, what a splendid debater you must be, but really, you poor fellow! Sorry to break this to you, but English lawyers - leavers, remainers, catholics, heretics, buddhists, and everyone else I’ve missed - one and all will just rise up, rinse, and repeat the same trivial litigation technique they’ve been deploying for decades before Brexit. With a novel twist! Contrive a natural way to mix EU citizens and UK nationals into the same case (there’s never been a shortage of EU citizens, impacted by whatever subject matter is engaged by the case and willing to join litigation in the English courts, gawd bless their cotton socks). Then implicitly invite the Court to give (inter alia) declaratory relief.Yes, you are young Grasshopper Mr Gove. But you will learn. This is the MO. This is the way this kind of thing tends to work (in the English Courts), though normally it applies only to edge rather than mainstream cases. The Courts will be faced with two choices - of which you and your mates, Mr Gove, have created the terrible default. First, the English Court might have to apply the law in precisely you and Mr J have arranged in Mr J’s Agreement, and thus declare all solely UK nationals to be second-class citizens in their own country, as mandated by any or all of the primary seventeen Apartheid Articles in Mr J’s Apartheid Deal that apply to the instant case. And, Mr Gove, every single time this outcome politically will be on you and Mr J - as an extremely obvious and direct consequence of your and Mr J’s brilliant Deal. What brilliant politics… This will happen on the many occasions the law will be so clear (and the advocates so uninspired) as to be incontestable. In terms of media crocodile tears, quisling politicians running for cover, and civil unrest, this will never be pretty (I don’t think it needs further analysis). So why is this so novel? Because it’s suddenly the default outcome, instead of the merely insane one that no sane Court would ever wish to choose.The second choice used to be mainstream, but now is available only if the law is a bit muddy; or can be made a bit muddy by mining some creativity. In such cases our English Courts will breathe an English sigh of relief and exercise their option (in a common law system) to discover a common law exception, by discovering or (as forced upon them) clarifying individual rights of UK nationals, serendipitously extending equal treatment before the law to UK nationals as against their otherwise more fortunate non-UK cousins. Where this second option is chosen, it will be a satisfactory result for the many, including politicians - but a most uncomfortable result for anyone betting a spare billion or three on arbitraging a drop in the rights of UK nationals. (Not that anyone would, of course…)Why the “Apartheid Articles”? Because some of my colleagues call them that. No, Mr Gove, why should I have any clue why? Really, Mr Gove? The ERG never told you that? They promised all apartheid would be the other way around? Oh, you poor, poor fellow! Struck down by the Law of Unintended Consequences again? Chin up! Sorry, slip of the tongue in your and Mr J’s case, I meant man up! Think for yourself! Look on the bright side! It’s only until about 2035, then you can do what you like to the hated EU citizens. Really? Yes Mr Gove, indeed I am aware our uniquely British expertise in camps goes back all the way to the Boer War. But, please no, that’s not quite what I meant….What’s that? Some of the 38 are arbitration, thus unimportant? Ah, you mean the CJEU oversight of arbitrated disputes between the UK and EU. Same answer, I’m afraid. Plus we don’t know just how unimportant the arbitrations will be - particularly should they result in massive humiliations for UK Ministers (though that of course could never happen in the CJEU, could it?). But again, look on the bright side. the starting time out for arbitration is after only 4 years. So it’s only until 2025 that the cases must be filed, so you only have to wait until about 2030/2031, after that you can forget about the UK-EU national tiffs for ever. It’s not as though we need a trade deal with them just to trade with them (so remind me why Mr J is obsessed with talking of nothing else? Brexit is done, so why does he even care? After all the government has conclusively proved it’s such crap at negotiation we’d only get screwed anyway… Relax, and learn to love the Chlorination)Yes, I agree. Let’s not talk about all the Articles for which the CJEU retains “primacy” indefinitely. The less said the better. But no, that doesn’t mean that you can remove them from the count, that’s just cheating. And yes, I accept it’s unfair that Article 162 gives the European Commission a novel intervention right into any and all of the millions of Court cases at any level of the legal system in the UK, whereas the UK’s reciprocal Article 161 right extends only to maximum of a few hundreds (conceivably thousands? if there weren’t thousands before, maybe there will be now) of CJEU cases per annum. So why the hell did Mr J agree that with the EU? Sorry, I shouldn’t ask, my incredulity is not your problem.My apologies, Mr Gove. You’re quite right to object the red line was only about the CJEU . I accept there never was any declared red line about preventing Commission jackboots from marching over our sceptred isle. So that’s ok, then, Mr J’s agreed position is that the Commission can intervene as of right in any and UK litigation until the cows come home. I stand corrected. What a clever fellow you are! Of course the Commission by definition will intervene only within any matters into which it feels like enforcing via the CJEU anyway, but let’s not talk about that - so I’ll concede that one on points. It wasn’t in the count anyway…No Mr Gove, not all the “indefinite” CJEU oversight Articles are as trivial as direct Commission intervention. Take the backstop. You know, the one created as an insurance policy against bad UK behavior? The one that exists until 2029 minimum, but even then won’t dissolve until both sides agree it should go? The European Commission’s independent Mini-Me authority that can enforce, with all the Commission’s public enforcement powers and CJEU oversight, against not only the UK, but also directly against any and every UK public body? The backstop negotiated by the UK, agreed by the UK, and now enacted through the UK parliament?No NO Mr Gove, of course I don’t mean THAT backstop (spit) . Not the infamous Irish backstop silly, that was dropped months ago! But back then everyone was talking about the Protocol for Ireland / Northern Ireland. Oh no. But hang on! … don’t you even remember the much bigger backstop? The one in Mr J’s deal? The bleeding obvious one in the main part of Mr J’s deal, before the Protocols? The Bleedingobvious Backstop? The one that applies to the entire UK, including but not limited to Northern Ireland? The Bleedingobvious Backstopfor the Apartheid Articles? The Awesome Article, 159? (it’s a huge backstop for a huge part of the deal, and nobody ever objected to it so of course it must be awesome, and every bit as loved, or at least non-contentious, as the Irish backstop (spit) was hated). And the Bleedingobvious Backstop that can intervene in every English Court case even if not brought by it? Because Mr J agreed to give it the powers of the Commission, and to give the Commission that same power to intervention as of right? You DID read the Bleedingobvious Backstop? Didn’t you?Oh Mr Gove, don’t you EVER read the international agreements you sign? Didn’t the ERG tell you about the the Bleedingobvious Backstop? Oh ok, maybe you’re right, perhaps they didn’t read Mr J’s deal either. Do none of them read? Is there a pattern here? Didn’t you all attend Oxford about the same time? Didn’t any of the colleges back then supply remedial teaching of the three Rs? No wonder you said the British people have had quite enough of experts.(wherever did I leave my bridge salesperson’s contact details? she said she had a nice one in stock that would span the Irish Sea, going fast so Mr Gove needs her services fast. Or perhaps Mr J)Oh I’m sorry. Technically you’re correct, Mr Gove, the Bleedingobvious Backstop never expressly refers to the CJEU. On the other hand, the Backstop’s statutory MO is enforcement of Part Two in conjunction with Article 158 - which is solely about CJEU “primacy” in the Part Two context - the Apartheid Articles, remember? So shall we call it a draw on that point? Oh ok, I’ll let you win that one on your technicality. Such a clever debater!So yes, I agree, you’ve satisfied the evidential burden to appeal to the Board for a retake. No, not because Mr J’s deal is fundamentally unfair to the UK. Who knows? They might even agree with you. But the question in my mind starts from the proposition (by inference) it was you and your pals, including Mr J, that negotiated and struck Mr J’s deal. So you now allege unfairness in the deal. But you yourself inflicted it upon the UK by negotiating it and crowed about how good it was. So how can you now stand your own history on its head and (by inference from your moaning) claim it’s suddenly not a good deal, and simultaneously claim you don’t understand the deal? Is it Good? or is it Bad? or is it all Greek to you? or is it all three? My head hurts. Anyway: you broke it, you own it.(No, don’t worry about the electorate’s reaction when they find out to what you and Mr J signed up. They’ll never find out, so long as you keep moaning: moaning about how the evil EU forced you and Mr J to sign the deal, and moaning about the evil Dolchstoßlegende remainers stabbing you in the back and eyes so you couldn’t read what you were signing anyway)What’s that? You want to defer your retake until after you leave politics??? Curious… Meanwhile, for bonus points:Contrast and compare your Withdrawal Agreement to each of your public statements since January 2020. Identify which of those public statements, if any, are consistent with your Withdrawal Agreement. Justify your answer with reasoned argument.Really, Mr Gove? Very well, we’ll let you duck that one altogether until you’ve finally retired from politics.Don’t panic, Mr Gove, I’m sure nobody will ever litigate anything on any subject matter that’s affected by EU law generally or might be referred to the CJEU in particular, or for that matter the Withdrawal Agreement aka Mr J’s deal. (Whoopsie, almost forgot some claims I’m drafting atm…)Post script edit: Almost forgot, Mr Gove. I’ve seen a few legal weaknesses on which Mr J’s deal can be successfully challenged in Court! In the CJEU of course (rats). By EU citizens, of course (oh bigger). Such as Article 2(c): '"Union citizen" means any person holding the nationality of a Member State;'First: congrats to Mr J for sneaking this one past the EU! And for knowing the Charter never defines EU citizenship in such restrictive terms! Maybe Mr J’s not such a crap negotiator as we all thought!!!? Who knew? Only one teensy problem: it’s a clear breach of the Charter rights of maybe a million EU citizens (back-of-envelope estimate to within an order of magnitude, so between say 500,000 and 5 million). You know, all the non-Member State nationals who from sundry sovereign political accidents are EU citizens. Such as:de jure or de facto, those who are nationals of a number of Caribbean nations (who probably don’t even yet realize that they’re EU citizens by way of - variously - nationality, birthright, bullet-proof application, international law, etc);de jure, any Greenlanders here (all of whom, after Grexit, probably do know);de facto, an indeterminate number of Moroccans (piggy-backing on the interminable Polisario jurisprudence… especially and ironically including asylum-seekers… so almost certainly there’ll be a few);no doubt plenty of edge-case sundry immigrants from other nations (I made a database a while back to support data protection software) who might wish to exploit Mr J’s Apartheid Articles;No, don’t panic, Mr Gove! It’s not another Windrush scandal! Yet. In fact there’s only one conceivable scenario under which any of this can impact current UK immigration policy towards current immigrants. A whole one of those million or so (only a few thousand of whom probably are here) would have to start litigating this, along with the Apartheid Articles, before 2029 (and have been here by end of 2020). Applying current UK government risk analysis methodology (minus experts, remember), that must mean there’s only a one a million chance of that happening! And, even if it does, Mr J’s deal (per Article 161) gives the UK the right to be legally represented before the CJEU! What could possibly go wrong?

Please read Swarna Bharat Party's detailed policy on Justice systemEfficient and effective justice systemSwarna Bharat Party’s justice policyIn its 117th Report (1986), the Law Commission observed: “The Indian Judicial System is admittedly colonial in origin and imported in structure. Without even a semblance of change in the last four decades since independence, in its mode, method of work, designations, language, approach, method of resolving disputes, it has all the trappings of the system established by the foreign rulers.”All freedom must necessarily be bound by accountability. We are free to do what we please, so long as we do not harm others. The justice system ensures accountability. If we harm anyone, justice must be quick and proportionate so everyone involved can get on with their life. But today there are about 3.80 crore pendencies/arrears/backlogs and cases drag on for years altogether, depriving many citizens of justice and violating their fundamental rights to life and liberty.We will commission a first-principles review of the justice system, to report in two years. In the meanwhile, we will implement a suite of reforms, some of which are outlined below.1.1 An impeccably honest and high quality judiciaryOur judiciary must be above board and above suspicion. It is crucial that the judiciary be perceived to be absolutely honest, unbiased, and accountable. Unfortunately, influential people are able to manipulate the ‘justice’ system to avoid jail. Petitions of rich and influential people are heard within days (even hours), while matters related to the poor languish for years, often never being completed in an entire lifetime. Chief Justice P. Sathasivam of the Supreme Court has acknowledged in July 2013 that the judiciary is not untouched by corruption.[1] A strong stench of corruption is arising from the courts. Bribery and perjury have destroyed the roots of the justice system, making it less a justice system than a system of ‘match-fixing’.We will create systems to ensure an honest and unbiased judiciary.1.1.1 CRIME PUNISHABLE WITH DEATH TO BRIBE A JUDGE OR FOR A JUDGE TO TAKE A BRIBEBribing judges (and judges accepting bribes) is perhaps the worst of all crimes – since it can lead to the innocent being punished and the guilty going scot-free. There is no more heinous offender of liberty than a judge that is not impartial.We will make it a crime punishable by death to bribe any Sessions Judge, High Court Judge or Supreme Court, or for a judge to accept a bribe. Other – lower – judges too, shall be sternly punished, likewise.The government itself is a litigant in many cases and should be punished if it bribes the judiciary. A judge should receive only his salary and associated entitlements; no more. It will become a crime punishable by death of the relevant Chief Minister or Prime Minister for any government to give any additional pecuniary benefits to any judge – such as the allocation of government land at a subsidised cost – over and above the contractual amount.1.1.2 NON-DISCRETIONARY ENFORCEMENT OF PERJURY LAWSThe lackadaisical attitude of many judges towards perjury is a systemic abuse that is destroying the very foundations of the justice system. People submit false affidavits with impunity today, as judges do not seem to care. False statements and evidence are often recorded under the very nose of trial judges. ‘Witnesses’, who are bought, appear in multiple cases before the same judge, with impunity. As a result, only the honest now fear the judiciary. There is a deep sense of despair at the breakdown of the rule of law.We will legislate to require judges to mandatorily impose stiff penalties for perjury, with a minimum six month prison sentence. It will also become a criminal offence for judges to not penalise perjury. Repeat offenders – who are proven to have accepted false statements as true – will be cautioned through the senior courts and further failures will invite formal complaints and FIRs. Judges need to be held to account for the truth of any evidence they rely upon for a judgement.1.1.2.1 TRANSPARENCY IN THE APPOINTMENT AND TRANSFER OF JUDGESThe existing system of appointments to the superior judiciary, through a collegium of senior judges in High Courts and the Supreme Court suffers from perceived deficiencies in quality, being an in-house process.We will seek to discuss with the Supreme Court Chief Justice to identify and action any opportunities for improving the system of appointment of judges, including (if necessary) through reforms such as the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill and the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill. A key to judicial appointments should be the deep held commitment of judges to liberty, including freedom of speech.NO ONE TO BECOME A JUDGE WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT EXPERIENCE AS A LAWYERCurrently there is no minimum practice requirement for becoming a judge in the district courts. People can directly appear after their law degree for an exam to become a judge. We will seek advice from the Supreme Court regarding imposing a requirement of significant case practice as a necessary pre-condition to appear in the exam in order to become a judge.1.1.2.2 INDEPENDENT COMMISSION FOR REMUNERATION OF JUDGESWe believe that most judges are poorly paid today relative to their private practice capability, creating incentives for corruption. But any corruption in the judiciary is fatal to the purpose of a justice system. We will establish an independent commission for remuneration of judges to advice on a market-comparable compensation framework. The framework should include incentives for quality, accuracy and speed of judgements. Given the extreme significance of this matter, we intend to accept without any delay the recommendations of such a commission. The people of India cannot be penny-wise and pound-foolish in relation to such a critical requirement as justice.1.1.2.3 FREEDOM (JUSTICE) MINISTER TO BE PAID BASED ON QUALITY AND SPEED OF JUSTICEThe Justice Minister, like all Ministers, will be paid partly according to results. KPIs for the Minister would include targets for resolving the case backlog, as well as indicators of speed and quality.1.1.2.4 TRAINING TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY AND EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICEWithout a commensurate strengthening of training and orientation among judicial officers / judges and lawyers, a rapid increase in the number of judges can put a strain on the quality of judgements. We will significantly upgrade the existing training systems of judges with a focus not merely on any changes to the law, but on best practice court procedures, such as that:arguments should be heard soon after the close of evidence, as they take much less time than arguments advanced after a long interval (recommendation of the 77th Law Commission);trial courts judgments should be brief and not a show of learning, and yet deal with inconvenient contentions and crucial arguments by appraising the evidence, relevant statutory provisions and such authorities that have direct bearing;Order 17, Rule 1, CPC (which does not allow more than three adjournments) should be followed and dilatory tactics including frequent adjournments, delays in filing documents, delays in serving or evading service be firmly curbed;judgments should be pronounced within 30 days (Order 20, Rule 1, CPC) and decrees within 15 days; anda time limit should be enforced on unnecessary details, such as over-proving allegations or unduly prolix examinations and cross examinations of witnesses.1.1.2.5 INTERNAL REVIEW SYSTEM: ACCOUNTABILITY FOR TIMELY JUSTICEWe will discuss with the Supreme Court options to introduce an internal review system to deal with complaints against judges and any unnecessary delays by judges.1.2 Timely, efficient and effective delivery of justice1.2.1 RAPID DISPOSAL OF CASES OF UNDER-TRIAL PRISONERSIt is a shame that thousands of under-trials are in jail for over ten years without their guilt having been established. We will cause a review of all cases of under-trial prisoners. Except for alleged crimes against person, they will either be freed on bail or permanently released if the time they have served is more than half the maximum statutory sentence.1.2.2 SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF JUDGESIndia currently has a ratio of around 13.5 judges for every one million persons. In developed countries, there are 130-135 judges for every one million persons. A judge needs to go into the details of the evidence and the law before deciding a case. Quality justice takes time. Without dramatically increasing the number of judges, we cannot deliver timely and quality justice to the people of India. The Supreme Court has directed an increase in the strength of judges to 50 per million in the subordinate judiciary. We believe this is an essential governance reform. We are committed to increasing the strength of judges to at least 50 judges per million within three years. Funds for this will be raised from recovery of efficient costs of the justice system through appropriate fees, and from rationalisation of the tax system.1.2.2.1 TRIPLING THE EXPENDITURE ON JUSTICE IN THREE YEARSKorea spends more than 0.2%, Singapore 1.2%, and the U.S. 1.4% of its GDP on justice. India, however, spent only 0.01% of the GDP on justice in 2000. What can be more absurd than this, that a core function of the government has been given such short shrift by successive governments in India? By cutting out unnecessary functions, we will redirect savings into core functions, one of the most important of these being justice. A quantum increase in expenditure on the justice system will be considered, at least tripling the current spending within three years, and much more in the future.1.2.3 FAST-TRACK OPTIONS1.2.3.1 FAST-TRACK COURTS TO DEAL WITH CORRUPTION/ CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST MPSThis policy has been detailed earlier, and is a critical part of our commitment to ensure that only good people are able to become elected representatives.1.2.3.2 FAST-TRACK COURTS FOR CRIMES COMMITTED AGAINST PERSONWe will create a fast-track system for crimes against person, with a maximum judgement time of 12 months from the date of reporting such crime, including a maximum of six months for investigation. Exceptions to this timeline will be investigated by a Judicial Commission and any necessary extensions given only in exceptional cases. Officials responsible for unnecessary delays will be punished.Terrorists and those who potentially pose a grave threat to the nation would be tried even more quickly through special courts.1.2.3.3 OTHER CASES REQUIRING TO BE FAST-TRACKEDWe will request the Supreme Court to strengthen its normal prioritisation mechanism. Cases requiring urgent attention/priority should be fast-tracked. This could include cases involving the death sentence; habeas corpus petitions; where orders have been passed staying other proceedings, or against orders of remand; cases involving senior citizens (whose timeline for justice is necessarily shorter); cases affecting custody of children; and motor vehicle accidents.1.2.4 MEASURES TO REDUCE PROCEDURAL DELAYS AND THE TIME AND COST OF JUSTICEWe will undertake a range of reforms to reduce justice system delays and costs. Illustratively, these include:1.2.4.1 PRE-LITIGATION MEASURESSection 89 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) provides for alternate dispute redressal mechanisms (ADRs). After issues are framed, cases can be referred to appropriate ADRs. Streamlining this process can reduce the time and other costs of justice.We will enhance the process to refer parties for counselling prior to commencing litigation, especially when there is scope for settlement. In general, all cases between two or more government agencies/departments should be settled outside courts – or through the inter-governmental machinery.We will create a regulatory regime that supports any private online dispute resolution initiatives for minor issues. In a competitive market, such systems are likely to be cheaper and quicker than comparable government systems.1.2.4.2 PLEA BARGAININGChapter 21 A of The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) provides for pre-emption of trial for petty offences punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years, through a mutually satisfactory disposition where the court directs the accused to pay an agreed compensation to the victim, and may either release the accused on probation or sentence the accused to up to half the minimum punishment prescribed for the offence in question.Unfortunately, plea-bargaining is rarely used in local courts. We will review the use of plea-bargaining and streamline it, excluding certain offences such as those committed against a woman or a child below the age of fourteen. This will significantly increase its use.1.2.4.3 STERN PUNISHMENT FOR FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION AND APPEALSThe government itself is a huge contributor to justice system delays. In matters where it is a party, it is common for the government to evade notices, reply to notices without application of mind, and unnecessarily appeal even when the laws are clearly in favour of the other party. Parties with deep pockets also waste a lot of judicial time, with vicious and frivolous cases and appeals, each of which is ultimately lost with strictures.The 192nd Report by the Law Commission (2005) outlined the concept of a vexatious litigant and proposed a draft bill, The Vexatious Litigation Prevention Bill. We will enact strong legislation to impose costs on parties engaging in frivolous litigation. In particular, we will make laws to stringently punish the senior-most government functionaries found responsible for vexatious litigation.Such penalties will also apply to police officers whose parking or other tickets are dismissed by courts.1.2.4.4 STOPPING ENDLESS APPEALSDue to slack judicial action, cases in India are often disposed without deciding the real issue. This results in endless appeals. Lawyers are also paid on a per-court appearance basis, and hence have little incentive to resolve cases. Procedural laws allow lawyers of clients who oppose the resolution of a case to submit endless interlocutory appeals. We will review and streamline civil and criminal procedures, to avoid such obfuscation of justice. We will regulate legal fees to require a cap on costs to be declared for each case by litigating lawyers to prevent their incentive to lengthen proceedings.1.3 Structural reforms of the judicial system1.3.1 MAKING THE SUPREME COURT MORE ACCESSIBLEGiven the heavy caseload and backlogs, as well as the time and costs imposed on litigants to travel to Delhi from distant states, there is much merit in decentralising the Supreme Court. The 2009 Law Commission recommended that the Supreme Court be split into a Constitution Bench in New Delhi and Cassation Benches in the four regions to deal with all the appellate work arising out of high court decisions. Though the Supreme Court has expressed reservations about any such radical re-structuring, we believe that one additional branch of the Supreme Court, initially in Bangalore, should be piloted in the first instance. Any concerns of the Supreme Court about capacity to govern the Cassation Benches can be addressed through close-circuit video conferencing, so regular private meetings can be held with the Chief Justice.1.3.2 INDEPENDENT PROSECUTING AGENCYWe will create an independent prosecuting body to ensure that police and investigative agencies have collated sufficient evidence and have reasonable prospects of securing conviction, before filing a charge sheet. This will also apply to cases filed by the government in civil matters and help minimise unnecessary government-created litigation. Internal review of processes and of any complaints received, and external audit of its performance would support other governance processes in place to ensure integrity and competence of this organisation.1.3.3 COMMERCIAL COURTSGiven the costly and time-critical nature of large commercial and contractual cases (such as IPR, mergers and acquisitions), we will set up Special Commercial Courts to fast-track such litigation, with a significantly higher fee. We will also appoint experienced and qualified judges on contract for technically complex cases. Such contractual judges could be hired from anywhere in the world.These actions will also empower our judicial system to increasingly take on the role of a global hub for arbitration and legal process outsourcing.1.3.4 MOBILE COURTS, LOK ADALATS, FAMILY COURTSFor relatively minor civil matters, we will set up mobile courts and encourage people to use the services of private arbitrators. We will increase Lok Adalats to one per 50 villages, and increase the number of Family Courts.1.3.5 PANCHAYATS TO JUDGE SIMPLE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL MATTERSToday, even petty cases tend to go before judges. We will pilot the use of panchayats for some minor civil and criminal issues, and minor land disputes. If successful, this would be rolled out, while always ensuring that panchayats abide by the norms of liberty and justice.1.3.6 PILOTING THE JURY SYSTEM IN CRIMINAL TRIALSAfter first speeding up criminal trials, we will consider ways to improve the quality of judgements, including by adopting a jury system in certain trials. There are some risks to a jury system, with many prevalent citizen prejudices that could distort justice. However, a jury system respects citizens’ judgement and can, in the longer run, result in fairer judgements as citizens’ education and the ability to assess evidence improves. We will pilot this system in relatively minor criminal matters and evaluate it before considering a broader rollout.1.3.7 PRIVATE COURTS FOR CERTAIN CIVIL MATTERSWe will enact laws to enable private (including online) arbitration and courts. Citizens will be able to choose in advance the use of such private courts as part of contracts such as for the construction of a house. Upon activating a dispute, the losing party will be required to pay penalties, including reasonable legal costs. This will create competition for justice (thus also keeping government courts on their toes) and lead to innovative, quicker justice. This will also, by reducing government court caseloads, ease justice system backlogs and save taxpayers significant amounts of money.1.4 Making the justice system more humane1.4.1 FREE HIGH QUALITY LEGAL AIDThe poor (those eligible for an NIT-type payment) will also be eligible for free high quality legal aid, the costs of which will be partially met through penalties imposed on the losing parties. No aid will be provided where it is determined by the legal aid system that the party is guilty.1.4.2 EASIER ACCESS TO BAILWe will make the option of bail for most charges (excluding crimes against person) mandatory and easier, to minimise unnecessary harassment of potentially innocent people.1.4.3 PRISON REFORMS INCLUDING REHABILITATION AND REDUCED RECIDIVISMPrison should be a place for a prisoner to repent the crime and to reform, to facilitate re-integration with society upon their release. We will introduce privatized prisons (with appropriate regulatory oversight) to be partly paid on reduced recidivism ratesImprisonment, being a restriction on freedom of movement, is itself a major punishment. There is no need for further cruel and degrading treatment of prisoners. We will also take measures to look after prisoners’ families, particularly of their children, to ensure that any ill-effects on their upbringing and self-confidence due to their parents’ imprisonment are minimized.1.4.4 REVIEW OF PRIVATE COSTS OF REPORTING CRIME AND REDUCING THESE COSTSThe effects of reporting certain violent crime, such as rape, on the mind, career, marriage prospects and social status of the complainant are often enormous. The victim thus gets further victimised. These reporting and social obstacles create incentives for significant under-reporting, thus emboldening criminals.We will review the private costs of reporting violent crime and introduce a range of laws and supports that make it easier to report and reduce the distress and costs (including social costs, such as through appropriate confidentiality) involved.1.4.4.1 LOOKING AFTER THE VICTIMS OF SERIOUS CRIMESWe will strengthen systems (largely through civil society institutions) to support and rehabilitate victims (and victim families), to ensure that they are reintegrated back into society at the earliest.1.5 Modernisation of lawsWe will modernise laws, particularly the penal laws. Some of the key modernisation issues are outlined below. Some others are mentioned elsewhere in this document, such as in relation to freedom of speech and property rights.1.5.1 GOVERNMENT TO BE LIABLE FOR HARM CAUSEDWe will legislate a duty of care that all government employees must ensure in their interactions with their clients. This will allow the government to be sued for damages where government servants, through their acts of commission or omission, harm citizens.1.5.2 REVIEW OF CONTEMPT OF COURT PROVISIONSJudges need powers to enforce decorum and demand discipline as part of the judicial process. However, there is a countervailing requirement to require constitutionally consistent restrictions on the exercise of these provisions, to limit any wilful misuse. Contempt of court provisions will therefore be reviewed and appropriate rules created to ensure these powers are deployed only in extremely limited cases.1.5.3 CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR HEINOUS CRIMESFor heinous crimes (including serious cases of corruption, child abuse and rape), judges would be required to specifically justify any exception to capital punishment, once proof beyond reasonable doubt has been adduced. Capital punishment in such cases would create a deterrent effect.1.5.4 MINIMUM STANDARDS, NOT A UNIFORM CIVIL CODEArticle 44 of the Constitution contains a directive principle that the state shall endeavour to secure for citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.[We believe that a Constitution should not include policy mandates. Policy must remain the prerogative of elected governments. We respectfully do not agree with the policy outlined in this Article and will commend a more refined approach to the country, consistent with liberty.]In relation to the substantive content of Article 44, it is to be noted that most religions specify some level of details regarding marriage and divorce. These are personal matters involving the most intimate unit of human existence: the family. Religious obligations on families are outside the scope of a government’s jurisdiction. Even in non-religious personal arrangements about marriage, there is fundamentally no role for government. Families should be able to structure themselves without violating the life or liberty of family members or others. A marriage contract or sacrament is a matter of personal taste on which the state can have nothing substantial to say.The only role a state can have in this regard relates to establishing norm-setting minimum standards, such as a minimum age of marriage, minimum maintenance requirements upon divorce and minimum inheritance requirements in absence of a will. All that would be required would be for citizens to abide by the legislated minimum standards while complying with the mandates of their individual faiths.More broadly, since there is no role for the state in religion, we will review all religious (e.g. Hindu/ Muslim) legislation on the statue books and replace it with generic rules of accountability applicable to all citizens.1.5.5 STRONGER ACCOUNTABILITY: PRISONERS TO PAY FOR THEIR UPKEEPWe will introduce innovative methods and technologies to ensure that society doesn’t pay unduly for the upkeep of prisoners. In general, prisoners will be billed all costs of their upkeep. Where they have known resources and assets, payment will be required before they are released. For prisoners without any identifiable resources, the amount will be converted into a loan and recovered through the tax system.Wherever appropriate, prisoners will be required to serve the family or community they have harmed.1.5.6 MANDATORY IMPRISONMENT FOR GANG CRIMES AND VIOLENT SEXUAL CRIMESWe will enact mandatory minimum prison sentencing for gang crimes, violent or sexual offences against children, rape, robbery, murder, and all assaults involving serious injury to law enforcement officers. We will create a national registry for convicted child abusers so they can be readily tracked. Parole will be minimized for dangerous or repeat felons.1.5.7 STRONG LAWS AGAINST TORTUREDespite signing the Convention against Torture in 1997, India is yet to enact a law to ratify the treaty. We will introduce such a Bill at the earliest.1.5.8 REVIEW OF VICTIMLESS CRIMESUnder various victimless crime laws, people are punished even when they have not directly harmed anyone. Typically, this relates to dealing with, or consuming illegal drugs. In general, victimless crimes should not prompt punishment (even assuming that analysis demonstrates the value of such punishment) comparable with punishment for violent crime. We will review laws regarding victimless crimes for necessity, and where considered necessary, for appropriateness of punishment.1.5.9 SEXUAL ORIENTATION NOT A CRIMEWe object to Section 377 of the IPC, which criminalises homosexuality. This is proven to have a significant hereditary/ biological origin, and therefore is not only a matter of personal choice. We will abolish this ‘crime’, particularly also as it is victimless. Non-consensual gay sex will be captured by the normal provision regarding rape.We agree that gay couples that wish to live together in a marriage-like relationship, can legally and contractually do so. We also note that the state has a very limited role in determining the nature and form of marriage. To the extent customary, at present, this relationship will not be called marriage, to distinguish it from heterosexual marriage. The right to bring up adopted children will, however, not be available to this form of cohabitation, given the need to assess this issue further in the best interests of children. Such an evidence-based assessment, including extensive consultation with the community, will be commissioned in the second term of our government.1.5.10 ADULTERY NOT A CRIMINAL OFFENCESection 497 of the IPC, a provision drafted in the Victorian era, treats adultery as a crime, which can be complained against only by the husband and never by the wife. We will move adultery from a criminal into a civil offence. Adultery is a form of breach of trust and should remain a ground for divorce, but is not a criminal matter. All sexual acts between consenting adults will be removed from the IPC.1.5.11 REFORM OF CHILD PROTECTION, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND DOWRY LAWSMost marriage-related complaints in India are considered to be criminal in nature. This is inappropriate. Except for matters involving physical violence and abduction, all other marriage issues will be moved into civil law.While many women face an oppressive environment at home and domestic violence needs to be punished, enough evidence has now accumulated that s.498a of the IPC, which addresses domestic violence and dowry deaths, is often misused due to the absence of checks and balances and its inbuilt stereotypical assumptions about gender roles. But no assumption of guilt should be inbuilt into the law. We will make offences under s. 498a bailable and compoundable, and require that any party that files a false case be mandatorily imprisoned for a minimum of three months, with all legal costs borne by the party that filed the false case.Since India is not a signatory of Hague convention on Private International Law, any marriage-related dispute between a foreign and Indian citizen is dealt as per Indian law. Further, current laws are unclear about the rights of the other marriage partner when one spouse takes away the children without consent. We will legally endorse the international convention to ensure international standards for child protection.1.5.12 STRONG ANIMAL PROTECTION LAWSWe will review and strengthen existing laws for animal protection. Animals consumed as food should be killed in as painless a manner as the state of knowledge permits. International best practice currently requires stunning before killing large animals. We will make humane killing mandatory in all abattoirs, with transitional provisions for local butchers that currently use customary (often brutal) techniques. Punishment for repeated inhumane killing of animals can extend to jail. The laws will also apply to temples and other religious places, bringing an end to animal sacrifice that is not assisted by modern technology.1.5.13 MAKING LAWS ACCESSIBLE AND CLEAR, THUS SUPPORTING TRANSPARENCY1.5.13.1 LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLE TO BE USEDWe will require the language of the people to be used in courts as far as ordinary civil and criminal matters are concerned.1.5.13.2 DEFINITIONS ACTAll legal definitions will be rationalised, stripped from existing legislation, and brought under a single Act. This will ensure consistency in the use of specific words in all legislation. All such terms will then be hyperlinked in electronic versions of the laws, so ordinary citizens can quickly identify their meaning.1.5.13.3 INDEXATION OF FINES, FEES AND PENALTIESWe will index fines, fees and penalties to the CPI. All such imposts will be converted into units, with the current unit values reflecting the changing value of the rupee.As part of this process, fines, fees and penalties that are set at outdated levels will be increased to reflect the current value environment, based also on cost recovery principles (with costs set at an efficient level).1.5.13.4 COMPUTERIZATION OF LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCEReady access to past judgements can help improve the quality of justice. In addition to computerization and publication of all relevant laws, all relevant jurisprudence will be digitised and published on the internet (making it fully searchable), to help improve the quality and speed of judgements. This would facilitate much shorter arguments and enable judgments to be expedited. More broadly, all modern technology will be actively used to support the justice system.1.5.13.5 TELECASTING COURT PROCEEDINGS ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERSExcept where matters of state security are involved, the Supreme Court will be required to telecast court proceedings on any Constitutional matter free of cost on social media and any private TV channel that wishes to broadcast these proceedings, so the people of India can better understand the framework and structure of our Constitution.1.5.14 REPEAL OF REDUNDANT LEGISLATIONA vast amount of irrelevant legislation remains on the Indian statute book. All laws, particularly pre-1947 laws will be reviewed for relevance and where found unnecessary, will be repealed within three years.1.6 Consumer protectionIt is bad business to be deceitful. ‘A habit of deceit is a mark of bad character, and bad character has a way of revealing itself no matter how cunning the individual. Deceit is both bad karma and bad business. Commerce [therefore] elevates manners and probity’. Information about a business’s character spreads across the society through gossip, newspapers and electronic media, legal case law, or even information that consumers may pay, for such as Consumer Reports in the USA. Strong business competition is a driver of good behaviour.However, there are cases where businesses cause a loss to buyers and either deny these losses, or ignore them, or themselves disappear. Such cases require specific action by the government. Where such losses are relatively minor, judicial remedy can be costly to everyone. We are committed to establishing a government led consumer protection agency that will deal with minor cases of misdemeanour by businesses and use persuasion and public shaming in cases of obvious damage. Where necessary, we will prosecute such businesses in the court of law on behalf of consumers.We will also regulate the minimal contractual requirements for various services so companies do not use the ‘fine print’ to exclude themselves from liability where they must take responsibility.