Allocating natural resources: Focus on policy implementation

The Supreme Court while answering to presidential reference said that the auction route was not the only method for allocating natural resources. The five-judge apex court bench headed by chief justice SH Kapadia said"Auction could be a better option where the aim is maximization of revenue, but then every method other than auction of natural resources cannot be shut down." 

This is a balanced judgement and was as per expected lines as the court cannot go into the wisdom of the executive in policy matters. And the policy will keep on changing with respect to the objective of the government and with respect to disposal of a particular natural resource.

Expressing the opinion that auction could not be the sole method of dispersing natural resources, justice DK Jain said "Auction could not be elevated as a constitutional mandate." The judgement clearly defines the role of executive and judiciary with respect to allocating natural resources. For e.g. in the case of 2G scam, the policy making was a clear perogative of the executive whereas judiciary stepped in only when 2G policy was not implemented properly or there were anamolies in 2G policy.

In case of 2G spectrum, the government had opted for first come first serve basis but even that was not followed transparently as the focus was to give benefit to few companies, out of turn. So, the Supreme Court had no option but to cancel 122 licenses alloted to nine operators.

In the case of 2G scam or coalgate scam, the anamoly was w.r.t. implementation of the policy or changing the policy midway to please certain organizations thereby directly or indirectly gaining from this change.

Even the verification of documents of companies w.r.t. certain policy guideline as decided by the government was not being followed sincerely. And it is tru for both 2G scam and coalgate scam.So, the big question is will the government follow the policy in letter and spirit or do we see a constant tussle between judiciary and executive whereas executive focuses on policy making and implementation and the judiciary steps in when the government does not implement the policy in letter and spirit.

The big question is why intervention of judiciary is required when government can proactively monitor projects like 2G spectrum or coal mining. If these projects have not been implemented within the timeframe, why corrective measures are not being taken by the executive?

The corrective measures are only taken when the Supreme Court or High Court steps in or when opposition make a lot of hue and cry or when media goes overboard with a particular issue. If proper implementation is taken care it will not affect India's rating w.r.t. investment and even foreign direct investment (FDI) will not be affected.

It will also shorten the time for India to move from a developing economy to a developed economy as the whole objective is to get more from what is available in terms of natural resources.

If all government departments, be it central or state can focus on proper policy implementation we can expect minimum corruption and money flowing into respective project rather than changing hands from one person to the other. With more money flowing into the project, it helps the government or common man who gets benefited from these projects as there is no cost escalation or time overun.

And the entire money is utilized for the project. So, the government should focus on proper policy implementation and if somebody deviates from the policy, punishment should be given, irrespective of the stature of the person or the size of the company.

Not an easy thing to implement in India but if implemented properly, it will help us regaining investor confidence and also help us in getting more FDI into the country, thereby lowering dollar value and helping us to check fiscal deficit in the long run.