She is made of numbers and I am made of words.

She is made of numbers and I am made of words.

Her nature of number, every time, she converses with him, behind her mind, she uses her ability of numbers, tries to reduce her complex thinking with equations that systematically arranges her thoughts, concisely describes her method and finally reduces her thought to most  accurate with elimination of all flaws except minor instrumental error of her electrolysis in her
cerebrum. She does this to convince him in the shortest time yet with the greatest outcome. Poor fellow he is, this makes him to get short of his word to the extent of bringing numbness in him being unable to even utter a word at times as he is totally lost in comprehending. His inability to respond to this rapid fire question make her to provide more confusing formula to the existing unresolved question.

Contrary to this, not realizing she is woman of number, his nature being a man of words, in his every conversation with her, he uses too lengthy  and complex sentences. These sentences are further loaded with too many grammatical twists, decorated by adjectives, nouns, pronouns, adverbs etc.With an intention to make it more simple and comprehensible to her, he lands up adding as much as antonyms and synonyms, phrases and frenzy jargon making like an essay with no punctuations and paragraphs or full stops to convince her in best possible way. This actually makes her utterly  and thoroughly confused with his side of conversation. It would been better if he possessed little poetic expression, he would be able  to lure here emotions and  roll back her confusion, make her understand what he actually meant considering her feminism. But this very essential elements, supposed to be possessing in a man of words is not only inadequate in him but completely absent in his genes. 

So,  the scenario here is, she wants to hear few words dipped in poetic ocean, yet he lands up using too plain and complex sentences without a drop of flowering words. His inability to listen to her soft and melodious words though too few, makes him the man of no listening. When this happens, it  raises her mercury higher and his confusion deeper. In such a situation, it is inevitable that, he gets lost in numbness and she boils like hot water.  

One might wonder, then how does these two people, one running clockwise and other running anti-clockwise co-exist ever in a life?. There is no secret to this co-existence. They use the basic principle of Electromagnetism, the principle of  "Like Poles Repel and Unlike Poles Attract". Even the Earth itself is held strongly by these two giant magnets located on opposite ends  of the globe with complete opposite properties. Yet they still hold the Earth because of their strong magnetic affinities. These two people though seems to possess two completely different complex nature, antagonistic and opposite thinking and behaviour, in actual sense, they have more magnetic force than the North and South Pole which binds them together. Their affinity of love and trust, care and respect, honesty and openess to each other, shadows all other evil elements, the differences lying between them, no matter what may come.  In the end, in their deep heart, there is a heavy magnet of unconditional love and dream of fairytale life like, the "Beauty and the Beast", together searching for a moment of joy, the moment  to hold eachother's hand,  embrace eachother for  every second of their life. Thus, its not their characters that binds them, it is their intimacy and soul that binds them against all odds of life. 

She is made of numbers and I am made of words.

She is made of numbers and I am made of words.

Her nature of number, every time, she converses with him, behind her mind, she uses her ability of numbers, tries to reduce her complex thinking with equations that systematically arranges her thoughts, concisely describes her method and finally reduces her thought to most  accurate with elimination of all flaws except minor instrumental error of her electrolysis in her

"Precedent"

The word 'Precedence" comes from the word "Precedent" which is often used by the courts called Judicial Precedent. However, at times, even in a small country like Bhutan where judiciary is still in the infant stage and so is democracy, the use of precedence seemed to be hijacking even some of the important decisions of the government and politicians.

Recently, RCSC used the term "Authorized Absence"
when the Cabinet Surrendered three Government Secretaries to the RCSC and when RCSC felt that cabinet did not complete the due process of law in surrendering the secretaries. RCSC used the authorized absence to secretaries which means they would not be in office till the investigation is completed but they would still receive their entitlements as usual. The rationale behind this was to prevent the possible interference by those secretaries while carrying out the investigation.
      Few weeks later, Office of the Attorney General, charged the Foreign Minister for alleged misuse of authority in the Lhakhang Karpo case while he was then Dzongdag. The Hon'ble Prime Minister borrowed the term "Authorized Absence" and send the Foreign Minister on Authorized Absence till the prosecution completes or the case is disposed citing that it was done to prevent possible conflict of interest as OAG is prosecuting the case.
    Few days after that, Anti-Corruption Commission issued a notice to the office of the Prime Minister and Haa Dzongkhag Administration to suspend the officials involved in the alleged corruption. Subsequently, Haa Dzongkhag suspended the officers where by they would now receive only 50% of the entitlements while FM continues to be on authorized absence with full entitlements.

   This has raised the eye brows of the public, outraged some and spark a huge debate both on mainstream media and social media. The PM's office argued that they are following the precedent set by RCSC, RCSC defended and argued that authorized absence was used because  the investigation of these officials are still going on unlike the Lhakhang Karpo case where investigation has already been completed. Whatever said and done, in the name of precedent, the people involved in the same crime are now seemed to have treated differently.

Thus, it brings the us to understand what really is "Precedent".  The Oxford Dictionary defines Precedent as "an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered. in subsequent similar circumstance". Black's Law Dictionary defines as "A decided case that furnishes a basis for determining later cases involving similar facts or issues"  Thus, in short, precedent may be defined as judicial decision that is binding on the other equal or lower courts in the same jurisdiction on the point of law in the subsequent cases where the facts are sufficiently similar. 

The principle of precedent is supposed to be derived from doctrine of Stare Decisis which is based on the legal maxim "Stare decisis et non quieta movere" which means to stand by things decided and not to disturb settled point.Therefore, for a decision to be called precedent, the previous decision must have been settled law or principle. Second, the facts or the circumstance must be sufficiently similar to follow as precedent. A law or principle to be called settled law or principle, a case must have been decided by the court and that is why precedent is often described as the law made by the judges when there are no laws on such matters enacted by the legislature, in modern terms used as judicial activism. Therefore, it may be important to determine whether these  basic criteria for these doctrines are fulfilled or not. 

Thus, in cases that are criminal in nature, it may be of a grave concern for the  general public for the executives or politicians to come up with such principles and terms which are not explicitly given in any laws enacted by the parliament. With such emergence, people's faith in government vanishes and role of judiciary undermined. Public feel that there are two parallel laws operating on the same crime but for different people, the lower ranks and higher ranks. 

Further, precedent evolved and used mainly in common law system as they did not have written constitution and settling of law was found more suitable through the doctrine of precedent in United Kingdom. Other legal systems including United States of America and India has also adopted this principle in many cases where there was absence of laws governing such cases. However, with more laws enacted, many precedents got repealed. 

Article 7(15) of the Constitution states that "All persons are equal before the law and are entitled to protection of the law and shall not be discriminated against on the grounds of race, sex, language, religion, politics or other status". Thus, everyone should be treated equally before the law under the similar circumstances, Eg. a murder by Minister or Police officer or layman, they are to be treated equally before law because all of them have murdered a person.

In view of this, the Constitution also provides us the remedies to challenge any law or a decision of any entity including the laws enacted by the Parliament under Article 1(11) of Constitution where one can petition the Supreme Court for their interpretation and Supreme Court or High Court has vested with power to even issue various writs under the Article 21(10) of the Constitution.

It is therefore, now in the hands of the aggrieved parties to decide whether such precedents are valid or not. It can only be tested through the Supreme Court as it involves the question of law and validity of such decisions or laws.

"Precedent"

The word 'Precedence" comes from the word "Precedent" which is often used by the courts called Judicial Precedent. However, at times, even in a small country like Bhutan where judiciary is still in the infant stage and so is democracy, the use of precedence seemed to be hijacking even some of the important decisions of the government and politicians.

Recently, RCSC used the term "Authorized Absence"

A little more hardworking media is desired.

The recent news of surrender of Secretaries by the cabinet has generated lot of debate in the Bhutanese society, both online and in the mainstream media, questioning the powers of the Cabinet to independence of the constitutional bodies in the country. While, many including most media seemed  to have assumed that the Secretaries were ripped of their post, the Cabinet decision did not explicitly in anyway indicated that the Secretaries were ripped of their post as they have used only the word “Surrender” and not any other terms
mentioned in the laws and by laws related to bureaucrats such as "Dismissed, suspend, terminated" etc.  Further, Cabinet clearly stated that they were surrendered to the RCSC for action. Thus, it seems to indicate that, the onus for action was actually given to RCSC for taking action against  the alleged persons.And the Commission has not shied away from it, it has already looked into the case and came up with a decision. 

The RCSC has accordingly looked at the alleged failures on the part of these officials to take actions. RCSC being now one of the Constitutional Bodies is ought to follow the procedures laid down by the Constitution itself as well as laws enacted thereunder. The Commission has no authority is take any decisions without fulfilling the provisions of the laws of the country. Therefore, after looking at the case and laws in place, the Commission indicated that, there are few steps which the cabinet might have missed in their first instance which are essential for the Commission to take further action.

It does in no way seem that, RCSC is trying to act contrary to orders of the Cabinet nor seem to show its independence, instead it seems to show that every institution is respecting the Rule of Law, the cabinet as well the commission. The Commission has not throw the ball in Cabinet's court as speculated by the Kuensel Editorial, rather Commission has asked the Cabinet to provide some information to help the commission to take the next decision. Cabinet has not taken any decision that would let these senior officers to leave the service nor has the RCSC taken decisions that undermines the decision of the cabinet. There can be no perfect step in every decision. That seems to have happened between the cabinet and the RCSC which is quite well indicated by the cabinet as they assured willingness to work as per the decision of the Commission. This, rules out any indication of any tussle or negative perceptions on the power and functions of both the cabinet and the commission.  

Unfortunately, our media and many Bhutanese seemed to indicate and assume that these senior officers were terminated from the service by the cabinet and now  RCSC is protecting them by re-instating them into the service which is wrong. The issue seems to get politicized. There seems to be lack of adequate effort from media in understanding the Rule of Law in the country.Media must remember that by constitution, any allegation must have prima facie and decisions must in accordance with the due process of law. 

Bhutan is guided by the Constitution and every citizen has  a right of equal protection under the law. Thus, Rule of Law is the most fundamental element for any democracy to succeed. It is therefore, paramount that, every institution must function within the framework of the law. There may be instances where laws are interpreted differently by different individuals or groups of people. For that reason, the Supreme Court is instituted as the final interpreter of the laws in the country. Therefore, any person, legal or natural person has the right to approach the Supreme Court or also have the option of reconciling the differences in the best interest of the nation.

Civil servants are governed by two laws, the Civil Service Act which is enacted by the Parliament under the Article 26 of the Constitution and Bhutan Civil Service Act Rules passed by the Commission under various provisions of the Act. The termination of civil servant is an administrative decision and hence, there are administrative steps to be followed first and if any civil servant is not satisfied by the administrative decision, he or she also has the right to seek the justice through the court of law. There are steps to initiate any disciplinary action against any civil servant. By Constitution, every person is innocent until proven guilty. 

The administrative decisions are supposed to be taken on basis of principle of natural justice.  The principle of Audi alteram partem (Opportunity to be heard) being most important. Bhutan Civil Service Rule is based on this principle.  This principle is not mere about of hearing the other party, it is also about due process of law. Due process of law is defined as “the conduct of legal proceedings according to established rules and principles for the protection and enforcement of private rights, including notice and the right to a fair hearing before a tribunal with the power to decide the case” (Black Law Dictionary). It is therefore, nothing wrong with the Commission to ask the Cabinet to fulfill any procedure as Cabinet may not be aware of all the provisions of Civil Service Rules and also RCSC is the final interpreter of their Rules, so they can always ask parties to provide additional inputs.

However, the recent speculations and reports of media are not encouraging. Such reports could instil the sense among the general populations specially those ignorant of law that there is a chaos in the country between the politicians and the executive which is not the case. General population may think that, these institutions are working to oppose and undermine each other’s independency. Such reports, if continued over period of time, could set a bad precedence and wrong perception among the general population which could ultimately instil distrust  in the minds of the people about the institutions we have and above all, the special gift from the throne. We expect the media to be little more broad and liberal in such cases and handle with little more sensitively in the interest of the nation than grabbing onto creating headlines. The interest of the nation must override any individual benefits and interests.