Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
if (Configure::read('debug')) {
trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);
} else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {
'status' => (int) 200,
'contentType' => 'text/html',
'headers' => [
'Content-Type' => [
[maximum depth reached]
]
],
'file' => null,
'fileRange' => [],
'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
'cacheDirectives' => [],
'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6802f8fc943c7-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6802f8fc943c7-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr6802f8fc943c7-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6802f8fc943c7-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6802f8fc943c7-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6802f8fc943c7-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6802f8fc943c7-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr6802f8fc943c7-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">>
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000"> <link rel="canonical" href="<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">); </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>/<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>.html"/>
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"> </span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type" </span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html; charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/>
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr6802f8fc943c7-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {
'id' => (int) 20903,
'title' => 'Not in the court room',
'subheading' => '',
'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Indian Express
</div>
<p align="justify">
<br />
<em>Three decisions by the apex court return the power to make policy to the executive</em>
</p>
<p align="justify">
The Supreme Court's decision on Friday to set aside the Orissa high court order against allocation of an iron ore mine to steel major Posco - it has asked the Centre to examine objections and take a final decision - follows two other major court decisions. Early this month, the court dismissed a PIL challenging the Centre's policy allowing FDI in multibrand retail. And this week, it refused to entertain a petitioner's plea against the Vedanta-Cairn India deal by citing a CAG report indicating presumptive losses to the country. Taken together, these three decisions should help begin to clear the air of anxiety about notional objections setting off institutional blocks to executive policy decisions. The court has restored the balance, returning the power to make policy to the executive realm. It has heeded institutional propriety - specifically, the government's discretion to make policy on the strength of enjoying the confidence of the elected legislature.
</p>
<p align="justify">
Assorted observations by the Supreme Court deserve study. In the FDI case, it said, &quot;This court does not interfere in the policy matter unless the policy is unconstitutional, contrary to statutory provisions or arbitrary or irrational or there is total abuse of power.&quot; In the Vedanta case, the court noted the need to understand the risk that necessarily informs most project decisions, and drew a distinction between a mala fide deal and a risky one. Equally, it cautioned against taking the auditor's finding as the final word before it has cleared parliamentary scrutiny. As unexceptionable as these points are, amongst many others emphasised by the court, it is unlikely that they will be enough to inhibit the filing of frivolous objections aimed at stalling policy decisions in future. There is, of course, a limit to the extent courts themselves can go to put in place a standard by which to throw out, if not penalise, frivolous petitions. The task of raising the bar on how policy is debated, weighed and legally challenged lies in the executive and political sphere.
</p>
<p align="justify">
In fact, it is the tentativeness of governments, at the Centre and in the states, and of political spokespersons, in owning policy and articulating it so as to raise popular literacy, that results in the need for evaluation to be done in the judicial sphere. Whether it is because of lack of conviction or simply lazy, risk-averse politics, elected governments are letting the debate on a policy, and potentially its fate, move to the courtroom.
</p>',
'credit_writer' => 'The Indian Express, 11 May, 2013, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/not-in-the-court-room/1114296/',
'article_img' => '',
'article_img_thumb' => '',
'status' => (int) 1,
'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
'lang' => 'EN',
'category_id' => (int) 16,
'tag_keyword' => '',
'seo_url' => 'not-in-the-court-room-21048',
'meta_title' => null,
'meta_keywords' => null,
'meta_description' => null,
'noindex' => (int) 0,
'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
'most_visit_section_id' => null,
'article_big_img' => null,
'liveid' => (int) 21048,
'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'edate' => '',
'tags' => [
[maximum depth reached]
],
'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
'[new]' => false,
'[accessible]' => [
[maximum depth reached]
],
'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[hasErrors]' => false,
'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[repository]' => 'Articles'
},
'articleid' => (int) 20903,
'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Not in the court room',
'metaKeywords' => 'Supreme Court,CAG,POSCO,Mining,FDI',
'metaDesc' => '
-The Indian Express
Three decisions by the apex court return the power to make policy to the executive
The Supreme Court's decision on Friday to set aside the Orissa high court order against allocation of an iron ore mine to steel major...',
'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Indian Express</div><p align="justify"><br /><em>Three decisions by the apex court return the power to make policy to the executive</em></p><p align="justify">The Supreme Court's decision on Friday to set aside the Orissa high court order against allocation of an iron ore mine to steel major Posco - it has asked the Centre to examine objections and take a final decision - follows two other major court decisions. Early this month, the court dismissed a PIL challenging the Centre's policy allowing FDI in multibrand retail. And this week, it refused to entertain a petitioner's plea against the Vedanta-Cairn India deal by citing a CAG report indicating presumptive losses to the country. Taken together, these three decisions should help begin to clear the air of anxiety about notional objections setting off institutional blocks to executive policy decisions. The court has restored the balance, returning the power to make policy to the executive realm. It has heeded institutional propriety - specifically, the government's discretion to make policy on the strength of enjoying the confidence of the elected legislature.</p><p align="justify">Assorted observations by the Supreme Court deserve study. In the FDI case, it said, &quot;This court does not interfere in the policy matter unless the policy is unconstitutional, contrary to statutory provisions or arbitrary or irrational or there is total abuse of power.&quot; In the Vedanta case, the court noted the need to understand the risk that necessarily informs most project decisions, and drew a distinction between a mala fide deal and a risky one. Equally, it cautioned against taking the auditor's finding as the final word before it has cleared parliamentary scrutiny. As unexceptionable as these points are, amongst many others emphasised by the court, it is unlikely that they will be enough to inhibit the filing of frivolous objections aimed at stalling policy decisions in future. There is, of course, a limit to the extent courts themselves can go to put in place a standard by which to throw out, if not penalise, frivolous petitions. The task of raising the bar on how policy is debated, weighed and legally challenged lies in the executive and political sphere.</p><p align="justify">In fact, it is the tentativeness of governments, at the Centre and in the states, and of political spokespersons, in owning policy and articulating it so as to raise popular literacy, that results in the need for evaluation to be done in the judicial sphere. Whether it is because of lack of conviction or simply lazy, risk-averse politics, elected governments are letting the debate on a policy, and potentially its fate, move to the courtroom.</p>',
'lang' => 'English',
'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
'site_title' => 'im4change',
'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {
'id' => (int) 20903,
'title' => 'Not in the court room',
'subheading' => '',
'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Indian Express
</div>
<p align="justify">
<br />
<em>Three decisions by the apex court return the power to make policy to the executive</em>
</p>
<p align="justify">
The Supreme Court's decision on Friday to set aside the Orissa high court order against allocation of an iron ore mine to steel major Posco - it has asked the Centre to examine objections and take a final decision - follows two other major court decisions. Early this month, the court dismissed a PIL challenging the Centre's policy allowing FDI in multibrand retail. And this week, it refused to entertain a petitioner's plea against the Vedanta-Cairn India deal by citing a CAG report indicating presumptive losses to the country. Taken together, these three decisions should help begin to clear the air of anxiety about notional objections setting off institutional blocks to executive policy decisions. The court has restored the balance, returning the power to make policy to the executive realm. It has heeded institutional propriety - specifically, the government's discretion to make policy on the strength of enjoying the confidence of the elected legislature.
</p>
<p align="justify">
Assorted observations by the Supreme Court deserve study. In the FDI case, it said, &quot;This court does not interfere in the policy matter unless the policy is unconstitutional, contrary to statutory provisions or arbitrary or irrational or there is total abuse of power.&quot; In the Vedanta case, the court noted the need to understand the risk that necessarily informs most project decisions, and drew a distinction between a mala fide deal and a risky one. Equally, it cautioned against taking the auditor's finding as the final word before it has cleared parliamentary scrutiny. As unexceptionable as these points are, amongst many others emphasised by the court, it is unlikely that they will be enough to inhibit the filing of frivolous objections aimed at stalling policy decisions in future. There is, of course, a limit to the extent courts themselves can go to put in place a standard by which to throw out, if not penalise, frivolous petitions. The task of raising the bar on how policy is debated, weighed and legally challenged lies in the executive and political sphere.
</p>
<p align="justify">
In fact, it is the tentativeness of governments, at the Centre and in the states, and of political spokespersons, in owning policy and articulating it so as to raise popular literacy, that results in the need for evaluation to be done in the judicial sphere. Whether it is because of lack of conviction or simply lazy, risk-averse politics, elected governments are letting the debate on a policy, and potentially its fate, move to the courtroom.
</p>',
'credit_writer' => 'The Indian Express, 11 May, 2013, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/not-in-the-court-room/1114296/',
'article_img' => '',
'article_img_thumb' => '',
'status' => (int) 1,
'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
'lang' => 'EN',
'category_id' => (int) 16,
'tag_keyword' => '',
'seo_url' => 'not-in-the-court-room-21048',
'meta_title' => null,
'meta_keywords' => null,
'meta_description' => null,
'noindex' => (int) 0,
'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
'most_visit_section_id' => null,
'article_big_img' => null,
'liveid' => (int) 21048,
'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'edate' => '',
'tags' => [
(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 2 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 3 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 4 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
],
'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
'[new]' => false,
'[accessible]' => [
'*' => true,
'id' => false
],
'[dirty]' => [],
'[original]' => [],
'[virtual]' => [],
'[hasErrors]' => false,
'[errors]' => [],
'[invalid]' => [],
'[repository]' => 'Articles'
}
$articleid = (int) 20903
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Not in the court room'
$metaKeywords = 'Supreme Court,CAG,POSCO,Mining,FDI'
$metaDesc = '
-The Indian Express
Three decisions by the apex court return the power to make policy to the executive
The Supreme Court's decision on Friday to set aside the Orissa high court order against allocation of an iron ore mine to steel major...'
$disp = '<div align="justify">-The Indian Express</div><p align="justify"><br /><em>Three decisions by the apex court return the power to make policy to the executive</em></p><p align="justify">The Supreme Court's decision on Friday to set aside the Orissa high court order against allocation of an iron ore mine to steel major Posco - it has asked the Centre to examine objections and take a final decision - follows two other major court decisions. Early this month, the court dismissed a PIL challenging the Centre's policy allowing FDI in multibrand retail. And this week, it refused to entertain a petitioner's plea against the Vedanta-Cairn India deal by citing a CAG report indicating presumptive losses to the country. Taken together, these three decisions should help begin to clear the air of anxiety about notional objections setting off institutional blocks to executive policy decisions. The court has restored the balance, returning the power to make policy to the executive realm. It has heeded institutional propriety - specifically, the government's discretion to make policy on the strength of enjoying the confidence of the elected legislature.</p><p align="justify">Assorted observations by the Supreme Court deserve study. In the FDI case, it said, &quot;This court does not interfere in the policy matter unless the policy is unconstitutional, contrary to statutory provisions or arbitrary or irrational or there is total abuse of power.&quot; In the Vedanta case, the court noted the need to understand the risk that necessarily informs most project decisions, and drew a distinction between a mala fide deal and a risky one. Equally, it cautioned against taking the auditor's finding as the final word before it has cleared parliamentary scrutiny. As unexceptionable as these points are, amongst many others emphasised by the court, it is unlikely that they will be enough to inhibit the filing of frivolous objections aimed at stalling policy decisions in future. There is, of course, a limit to the extent courts themselves can go to put in place a standard by which to throw out, if not penalise, frivolous petitions. The task of raising the bar on how policy is debated, weighed and legally challenged lies in the executive and political sphere.</p><p align="justify">In fact, it is the tentativeness of governments, at the Centre and in the states, and of political spokespersons, in owning policy and articulating it so as to raise popular literacy, that results in the need for evaluation to be done in the judicial sphere. Whether it is because of lack of conviction or simply lazy, risk-averse politics, elected governments are letting the debate on a policy, and potentially its fate, move to the courtroom.</p>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/not-in-the-court-room-21048.html"/>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
<link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
media="all"/>
<title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Not in the court room | Im4change.org</title>
<meta name="description" content="
-The Indian Express
Three decisions by the apex court return the power to make policy to the executive
The Supreme Court's decision on Friday to set aside the Orissa high court order against allocation of an iron ore mine to steel major..."/>
<script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
$(document).ready(function () {
var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
$("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
.attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
.load(function () {
pic_real_width = this.width; // Note: $(this).width() will not
pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
});
});
</script>
<style type="text/css">
@media screen {
div.divFooter {
display: block;
}
}
@media print {
.printbutton {
display: none !important;
}
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
<tr>
<td class="top_bg">
<div class="divFooter">
<img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td id="topspace"> </td>
</tr>
<tr id="topspace">
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
<form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="100%">
<h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
<strong>Not in the court room</strong></h1>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
<div align="justify">-The Indian Express</div><p align="justify"><br /><em>Three decisions by the apex court return the power to make policy to the executive</em></p><p align="justify">The Supreme Court's decision on Friday to set aside the Orissa high court order against allocation of an iron ore mine to steel major Posco - it has asked the Centre to examine objections and take a final decision - follows two other major court decisions. Early this month, the court dismissed a PIL challenging the Centre's policy allowing FDI in multibrand retail. And this week, it refused to entertain a petitioner's plea against the Vedanta-Cairn India deal by citing a CAG report indicating presumptive losses to the country. Taken together, these three decisions should help begin to clear the air of anxiety about notional objections setting off institutional blocks to executive policy decisions. The court has restored the balance, returning the power to make policy to the executive realm. It has heeded institutional propriety - specifically, the government's discretion to make policy on the strength of enjoying the confidence of the elected legislature.</p><p align="justify">Assorted observations by the Supreme Court deserve study. In the FDI case, it said, "This court does not interfere in the policy matter unless the policy is unconstitutional, contrary to statutory provisions or arbitrary or irrational or there is total abuse of power." In the Vedanta case, the court noted the need to understand the risk that necessarily informs most project decisions, and drew a distinction between a mala fide deal and a risky one. Equally, it cautioned against taking the auditor's finding as the final word before it has cleared parliamentary scrutiny. As unexceptionable as these points are, amongst many others emphasised by the court, it is unlikely that they will be enough to inhibit the filing of frivolous objections aimed at stalling policy decisions in future. There is, of course, a limit to the extent courts themselves can go to put in place a standard by which to throw out, if not penalise, frivolous petitions. The task of raising the bar on how policy is debated, weighed and legally challenged lies in the executive and political sphere.</p><p align="justify">In fact, it is the tentativeness of governments, at the Centre and in the states, and of political spokespersons, in owning policy and articulating it so as to raise popular literacy, that results in the need for evaluation to be done in the judicial sphere. Whether it is because of lack of conviction or simply lazy, risk-averse politics, elected governments are letting the debate on a policy, and potentially its fate, move to the courtroom.</p> </font>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
<form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
</td>
</tr>
</table></body>
</html>'
}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {
'status' => (int) 200,
'contentType' => 'text/html',
'headers' => [
'Content-Type' => [
[maximum depth reached]
]
],
'file' => null,
'fileRange' => [],
'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
'cacheDirectives' => [],
'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6802f8fc943c7-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6802f8fc943c7-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr6802f8fc943c7-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6802f8fc943c7-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6802f8fc943c7-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6802f8fc943c7-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6802f8fc943c7-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr6802f8fc943c7-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">>
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000"> <link rel="canonical" href="<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">); </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>/<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>.html"/>
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"> </span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type" </span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html; charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/>
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr6802f8fc943c7-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {
'id' => (int) 20903,
'title' => 'Not in the court room',
'subheading' => '',
'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Indian Express
</div>
<p align="justify">
<br />
<em>Three decisions by the apex court return the power to make policy to the executive</em>
</p>
<p align="justify">
The Supreme Court's decision on Friday to set aside the Orissa high court order against allocation of an iron ore mine to steel major Posco - it has asked the Centre to examine objections and take a final decision - follows two other major court decisions. Early this month, the court dismissed a PIL challenging the Centre's policy allowing FDI in multibrand retail. And this week, it refused to entertain a petitioner's plea against the Vedanta-Cairn India deal by citing a CAG report indicating presumptive losses to the country. Taken together, these three decisions should help begin to clear the air of anxiety about notional objections setting off institutional blocks to executive policy decisions. The court has restored the balance, returning the power to make policy to the executive realm. It has heeded institutional propriety - specifically, the government's discretion to make policy on the strength of enjoying the confidence of the elected legislature.
</p>
<p align="justify">
Assorted observations by the Supreme Court deserve study. In the FDI case, it said, &quot;This court does not interfere in the policy matter unless the policy is unconstitutional, contrary to statutory provisions or arbitrary or irrational or there is total abuse of power.&quot; In the Vedanta case, the court noted the need to understand the risk that necessarily informs most project decisions, and drew a distinction between a mala fide deal and a risky one. Equally, it cautioned against taking the auditor's finding as the final word before it has cleared parliamentary scrutiny. As unexceptionable as these points are, amongst many others emphasised by the court, it is unlikely that they will be enough to inhibit the filing of frivolous objections aimed at stalling policy decisions in future. There is, of course, a limit to the extent courts themselves can go to put in place a standard by which to throw out, if not penalise, frivolous petitions. The task of raising the bar on how policy is debated, weighed and legally challenged lies in the executive and political sphere.
</p>
<p align="justify">
In fact, it is the tentativeness of governments, at the Centre and in the states, and of political spokespersons, in owning policy and articulating it so as to raise popular literacy, that results in the need for evaluation to be done in the judicial sphere. Whether it is because of lack of conviction or simply lazy, risk-averse politics, elected governments are letting the debate on a policy, and potentially its fate, move to the courtroom.
</p>',
'credit_writer' => 'The Indian Express, 11 May, 2013, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/not-in-the-court-room/1114296/',
'article_img' => '',
'article_img_thumb' => '',
'status' => (int) 1,
'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
'lang' => 'EN',
'category_id' => (int) 16,
'tag_keyword' => '',
'seo_url' => 'not-in-the-court-room-21048',
'meta_title' => null,
'meta_keywords' => null,
'meta_description' => null,
'noindex' => (int) 0,
'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
'most_visit_section_id' => null,
'article_big_img' => null,
'liveid' => (int) 21048,
'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'edate' => '',
'tags' => [
[maximum depth reached]
],
'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
'[new]' => false,
'[accessible]' => [
[maximum depth reached]
],
'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[hasErrors]' => false,
'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[repository]' => 'Articles'
},
'articleid' => (int) 20903,
'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Not in the court room',
'metaKeywords' => 'Supreme Court,CAG,POSCO,Mining,FDI',
'metaDesc' => '
-The Indian Express
Three decisions by the apex court return the power to make policy to the executive
The Supreme Court's decision on Friday to set aside the Orissa high court order against allocation of an iron ore mine to steel major...',
'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Indian Express</div><p align="justify"><br /><em>Three decisions by the apex court return the power to make policy to the executive</em></p><p align="justify">The Supreme Court's decision on Friday to set aside the Orissa high court order against allocation of an iron ore mine to steel major Posco - it has asked the Centre to examine objections and take a final decision - follows two other major court decisions. Early this month, the court dismissed a PIL challenging the Centre's policy allowing FDI in multibrand retail. And this week, it refused to entertain a petitioner's plea against the Vedanta-Cairn India deal by citing a CAG report indicating presumptive losses to the country. Taken together, these three decisions should help begin to clear the air of anxiety about notional objections setting off institutional blocks to executive policy decisions. The court has restored the balance, returning the power to make policy to the executive realm. It has heeded institutional propriety - specifically, the government's discretion to make policy on the strength of enjoying the confidence of the elected legislature.</p><p align="justify">Assorted observations by the Supreme Court deserve study. In the FDI case, it said, &quot;This court does not interfere in the policy matter unless the policy is unconstitutional, contrary to statutory provisions or arbitrary or irrational or there is total abuse of power.&quot; In the Vedanta case, the court noted the need to understand the risk that necessarily informs most project decisions, and drew a distinction between a mala fide deal and a risky one. Equally, it cautioned against taking the auditor's finding as the final word before it has cleared parliamentary scrutiny. As unexceptionable as these points are, amongst many others emphasised by the court, it is unlikely that they will be enough to inhibit the filing of frivolous objections aimed at stalling policy decisions in future. There is, of course, a limit to the extent courts themselves can go to put in place a standard by which to throw out, if not penalise, frivolous petitions. The task of raising the bar on how policy is debated, weighed and legally challenged lies in the executive and political sphere.</p><p align="justify">In fact, it is the tentativeness of governments, at the Centre and in the states, and of political spokespersons, in owning policy and articulating it so as to raise popular literacy, that results in the need for evaluation to be done in the judicial sphere. Whether it is because of lack of conviction or simply lazy, risk-averse politics, elected governments are letting the debate on a policy, and potentially its fate, move to the courtroom.</p>',
'lang' => 'English',
'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
'site_title' => 'im4change',
'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {
'id' => (int) 20903,
'title' => 'Not in the court room',
'subheading' => '',
'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Indian Express
</div>
<p align="justify">
<br />
<em>Three decisions by the apex court return the power to make policy to the executive</em>
</p>
<p align="justify">
The Supreme Court's decision on Friday to set aside the Orissa high court order against allocation of an iron ore mine to steel major Posco - it has asked the Centre to examine objections and take a final decision - follows two other major court decisions. Early this month, the court dismissed a PIL challenging the Centre's policy allowing FDI in multibrand retail. And this week, it refused to entertain a petitioner's plea against the Vedanta-Cairn India deal by citing a CAG report indicating presumptive losses to the country. Taken together, these three decisions should help begin to clear the air of anxiety about notional objections setting off institutional blocks to executive policy decisions. The court has restored the balance, returning the power to make policy to the executive realm. It has heeded institutional propriety - specifically, the government's discretion to make policy on the strength of enjoying the confidence of the elected legislature.
</p>
<p align="justify">
Assorted observations by the Supreme Court deserve study. In the FDI case, it said, &quot;This court does not interfere in the policy matter unless the policy is unconstitutional, contrary to statutory provisions or arbitrary or irrational or there is total abuse of power.&quot; In the Vedanta case, the court noted the need to understand the risk that necessarily informs most project decisions, and drew a distinction between a mala fide deal and a risky one. Equally, it cautioned against taking the auditor's finding as the final word before it has cleared parliamentary scrutiny. As unexceptionable as these points are, amongst many others emphasised by the court, it is unlikely that they will be enough to inhibit the filing of frivolous objections aimed at stalling policy decisions in future. There is, of course, a limit to the extent courts themselves can go to put in place a standard by which to throw out, if not penalise, frivolous petitions. The task of raising the bar on how policy is debated, weighed and legally challenged lies in the executive and political sphere.
</p>
<p align="justify">
In fact, it is the tentativeness of governments, at the Centre and in the states, and of political spokespersons, in owning policy and articulating it so as to raise popular literacy, that results in the need for evaluation to be done in the judicial sphere. Whether it is because of lack of conviction or simply lazy, risk-averse politics, elected governments are letting the debate on a policy, and potentially its fate, move to the courtroom.
</p>',
'credit_writer' => 'The Indian Express, 11 May, 2013, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/not-in-the-court-room/1114296/',
'article_img' => '',
'article_img_thumb' => '',
'status' => (int) 1,
'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
'lang' => 'EN',
'category_id' => (int) 16,
'tag_keyword' => '',
'seo_url' => 'not-in-the-court-room-21048',
'meta_title' => null,
'meta_keywords' => null,
'meta_description' => null,
'noindex' => (int) 0,
'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
'most_visit_section_id' => null,
'article_big_img' => null,
'liveid' => (int) 21048,
'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'edate' => '',
'tags' => [
(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 2 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 3 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 4 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
],
'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
'[new]' => false,
'[accessible]' => [
'*' => true,
'id' => false
],
'[dirty]' => [],
'[original]' => [],
'[virtual]' => [],
'[hasErrors]' => false,
'[errors]' => [],
'[invalid]' => [],
'[repository]' => 'Articles'
}
$articleid = (int) 20903
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Not in the court room'
$metaKeywords = 'Supreme Court,CAG,POSCO,Mining,FDI'
$metaDesc = '
-The Indian Express
Three decisions by the apex court return the power to make policy to the executive
The Supreme Court's decision on Friday to set aside the Orissa high court order against allocation of an iron ore mine to steel major...'
$disp = '<div align="justify">-The Indian Express</div><p align="justify"><br /><em>Three decisions by the apex court return the power to make policy to the executive</em></p><p align="justify">The Supreme Court's decision on Friday to set aside the Orissa high court order against allocation of an iron ore mine to steel major Posco - it has asked the Centre to examine objections and take a final decision - follows two other major court decisions. Early this month, the court dismissed a PIL challenging the Centre's policy allowing FDI in multibrand retail. And this week, it refused to entertain a petitioner's plea against the Vedanta-Cairn India deal by citing a CAG report indicating presumptive losses to the country. Taken together, these three decisions should help begin to clear the air of anxiety about notional objections setting off institutional blocks to executive policy decisions. The court has restored the balance, returning the power to make policy to the executive realm. It has heeded institutional propriety - specifically, the government's discretion to make policy on the strength of enjoying the confidence of the elected legislature.</p><p align="justify">Assorted observations by the Supreme Court deserve study. In the FDI case, it said, &quot;This court does not interfere in the policy matter unless the policy is unconstitutional, contrary to statutory provisions or arbitrary or irrational or there is total abuse of power.&quot; In the Vedanta case, the court noted the need to understand the risk that necessarily informs most project decisions, and drew a distinction between a mala fide deal and a risky one. Equally, it cautioned against taking the auditor's finding as the final word before it has cleared parliamentary scrutiny. As unexceptionable as these points are, amongst many others emphasised by the court, it is unlikely that they will be enough to inhibit the filing of frivolous objections aimed at stalling policy decisions in future. There is, of course, a limit to the extent courts themselves can go to put in place a standard by which to throw out, if not penalise, frivolous petitions. The task of raising the bar on how policy is debated, weighed and legally challenged lies in the executive and political sphere.</p><p align="justify">In fact, it is the tentativeness of governments, at the Centre and in the states, and of political spokespersons, in owning policy and articulating it so as to raise popular literacy, that results in the need for evaluation to be done in the judicial sphere. Whether it is because of lack of conviction or simply lazy, risk-averse politics, elected governments are letting the debate on a policy, and potentially its fate, move to the courtroom.</p>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/not-in-the-court-room-21048.html"/>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
<link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
media="all"/>
<title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Not in the court room | Im4change.org</title>
<meta name="description" content="
-The Indian Express
Three decisions by the apex court return the power to make policy to the executive
The Supreme Court's decision on Friday to set aside the Orissa high court order against allocation of an iron ore mine to steel major..."/>
<script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
$(document).ready(function () {
var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
$("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
.attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
.load(function () {
pic_real_width = this.width; // Note: $(this).width() will not
pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
});
});
</script>
<style type="text/css">
@media screen {
div.divFooter {
display: block;
}
}
@media print {
.printbutton {
display: none !important;
}
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
<tr>
<td class="top_bg">
<div class="divFooter">
<img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td id="topspace"> </td>
</tr>
<tr id="topspace">
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
<form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="100%">
<h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
<strong>Not in the court room</strong></h1>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
<div align="justify">-The Indian Express</div><p align="justify"><br /><em>Three decisions by the apex court return the power to make policy to the executive</em></p><p align="justify">The Supreme Court's decision on Friday to set aside the Orissa high court order against allocation of an iron ore mine to steel major Posco - it has asked the Centre to examine objections and take a final decision - follows two other major court decisions. Early this month, the court dismissed a PIL challenging the Centre's policy allowing FDI in multibrand retail. And this week, it refused to entertain a petitioner's plea against the Vedanta-Cairn India deal by citing a CAG report indicating presumptive losses to the country. Taken together, these three decisions should help begin to clear the air of anxiety about notional objections setting off institutional blocks to executive policy decisions. The court has restored the balance, returning the power to make policy to the executive realm. It has heeded institutional propriety - specifically, the government's discretion to make policy on the strength of enjoying the confidence of the elected legislature.</p><p align="justify">Assorted observations by the Supreme Court deserve study. In the FDI case, it said, "This court does not interfere in the policy matter unless the policy is unconstitutional, contrary to statutory provisions or arbitrary or irrational or there is total abuse of power." In the Vedanta case, the court noted the need to understand the risk that necessarily informs most project decisions, and drew a distinction between a mala fide deal and a risky one. Equally, it cautioned against taking the auditor's finding as the final word before it has cleared parliamentary scrutiny. As unexceptionable as these points are, amongst many others emphasised by the court, it is unlikely that they will be enough to inhibit the filing of frivolous objections aimed at stalling policy decisions in future. There is, of course, a limit to the extent courts themselves can go to put in place a standard by which to throw out, if not penalise, frivolous petitions. The task of raising the bar on how policy is debated, weighed and legally challenged lies in the executive and political sphere.</p><p align="justify">In fact, it is the tentativeness of governments, at the Centre and in the states, and of political spokespersons, in owning policy and articulating it so as to raise popular literacy, that results in the need for evaluation to be done in the judicial sphere. Whether it is because of lack of conviction or simply lazy, risk-averse politics, elected governments are letting the debate on a policy, and potentially its fate, move to the courtroom.</p> </font>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
<form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
</td>
</tr>
</table></body>
</html>'
}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {
'status' => (int) 200,
'contentType' => 'text/html',
'headers' => [
'Content-Type' => [
[maximum depth reached]
]
],
'file' => null,
'fileRange' => [],
'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
'cacheDirectives' => [],
'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6802f8fc943c7-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6802f8fc943c7-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr6802f8fc943c7-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6802f8fc943c7-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6802f8fc943c7-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6802f8fc943c7-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6802f8fc943c7-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr6802f8fc943c7-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">>
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000"> <link rel="canonical" href="<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">); </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>/<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>.html"/>
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"> </span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type" </span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html; charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/>
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr6802f8fc943c7-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {
'id' => (int) 20903,
'title' => 'Not in the court room',
'subheading' => '',
'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Indian Express
</div>
<p align="justify">
<br />
<em>Three decisions by the apex court return the power to make policy to the executive</em>
</p>
<p align="justify">
The Supreme Court's decision on Friday to set aside the Orissa high court order against allocation of an iron ore mine to steel major Posco - it has asked the Centre to examine objections and take a final decision - follows two other major court decisions. Early this month, the court dismissed a PIL challenging the Centre's policy allowing FDI in multibrand retail. And this week, it refused to entertain a petitioner's plea against the Vedanta-Cairn India deal by citing a CAG report indicating presumptive losses to the country. Taken together, these three decisions should help begin to clear the air of anxiety about notional objections setting off institutional blocks to executive policy decisions. The court has restored the balance, returning the power to make policy to the executive realm. It has heeded institutional propriety - specifically, the government's discretion to make policy on the strength of enjoying the confidence of the elected legislature.
</p>
<p align="justify">
Assorted observations by the Supreme Court deserve study. In the FDI case, it said, &quot;This court does not interfere in the policy matter unless the policy is unconstitutional, contrary to statutory provisions or arbitrary or irrational or there is total abuse of power.&quot; In the Vedanta case, the court noted the need to understand the risk that necessarily informs most project decisions, and drew a distinction between a mala fide deal and a risky one. Equally, it cautioned against taking the auditor's finding as the final word before it has cleared parliamentary scrutiny. As unexceptionable as these points are, amongst many others emphasised by the court, it is unlikely that they will be enough to inhibit the filing of frivolous objections aimed at stalling policy decisions in future. There is, of course, a limit to the extent courts themselves can go to put in place a standard by which to throw out, if not penalise, frivolous petitions. The task of raising the bar on how policy is debated, weighed and legally challenged lies in the executive and political sphere.
</p>
<p align="justify">
In fact, it is the tentativeness of governments, at the Centre and in the states, and of political spokespersons, in owning policy and articulating it so as to raise popular literacy, that results in the need for evaluation to be done in the judicial sphere. Whether it is because of lack of conviction or simply lazy, risk-averse politics, elected governments are letting the debate on a policy, and potentially its fate, move to the courtroom.
</p>',
'credit_writer' => 'The Indian Express, 11 May, 2013, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/not-in-the-court-room/1114296/',
'article_img' => '',
'article_img_thumb' => '',
'status' => (int) 1,
'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
'lang' => 'EN',
'category_id' => (int) 16,
'tag_keyword' => '',
'seo_url' => 'not-in-the-court-room-21048',
'meta_title' => null,
'meta_keywords' => null,
'meta_description' => null,
'noindex' => (int) 0,
'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
'most_visit_section_id' => null,
'article_big_img' => null,
'liveid' => (int) 21048,
'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'edate' => '',
'tags' => [
[maximum depth reached]
],
'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
'[new]' => false,
'[accessible]' => [
[maximum depth reached]
],
'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[hasErrors]' => false,
'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[repository]' => 'Articles'
},
'articleid' => (int) 20903,
'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Not in the court room',
'metaKeywords' => 'Supreme Court,CAG,POSCO,Mining,FDI',
'metaDesc' => '
-The Indian Express
Three decisions by the apex court return the power to make policy to the executive
The Supreme Court's decision on Friday to set aside the Orissa high court order against allocation of an iron ore mine to steel major...',
'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Indian Express</div><p align="justify"><br /><em>Three decisions by the apex court return the power to make policy to the executive</em></p><p align="justify">The Supreme Court's decision on Friday to set aside the Orissa high court order against allocation of an iron ore mine to steel major Posco - it has asked the Centre to examine objections and take a final decision - follows two other major court decisions. Early this month, the court dismissed a PIL challenging the Centre's policy allowing FDI in multibrand retail. And this week, it refused to entertain a petitioner's plea against the Vedanta-Cairn India deal by citing a CAG report indicating presumptive losses to the country. Taken together, these three decisions should help begin to clear the air of anxiety about notional objections setting off institutional blocks to executive policy decisions. The court has restored the balance, returning the power to make policy to the executive realm. It has heeded institutional propriety - specifically, the government's discretion to make policy on the strength of enjoying the confidence of the elected legislature.</p><p align="justify">Assorted observations by the Supreme Court deserve study. In the FDI case, it said, &quot;This court does not interfere in the policy matter unless the policy is unconstitutional, contrary to statutory provisions or arbitrary or irrational or there is total abuse of power.&quot; In the Vedanta case, the court noted the need to understand the risk that necessarily informs most project decisions, and drew a distinction between a mala fide deal and a risky one. Equally, it cautioned against taking the auditor's finding as the final word before it has cleared parliamentary scrutiny. As unexceptionable as these points are, amongst many others emphasised by the court, it is unlikely that they will be enough to inhibit the filing of frivolous objections aimed at stalling policy decisions in future. There is, of course, a limit to the extent courts themselves can go to put in place a standard by which to throw out, if not penalise, frivolous petitions. The task of raising the bar on how policy is debated, weighed and legally challenged lies in the executive and political sphere.</p><p align="justify">In fact, it is the tentativeness of governments, at the Centre and in the states, and of political spokespersons, in owning policy and articulating it so as to raise popular literacy, that results in the need for evaluation to be done in the judicial sphere. Whether it is because of lack of conviction or simply lazy, risk-averse politics, elected governments are letting the debate on a policy, and potentially its fate, move to the courtroom.</p>',
'lang' => 'English',
'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
'site_title' => 'im4change',
'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {
'id' => (int) 20903,
'title' => 'Not in the court room',
'subheading' => '',
'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Indian Express
</div>
<p align="justify">
<br />
<em>Three decisions by the apex court return the power to make policy to the executive</em>
</p>
<p align="justify">
The Supreme Court's decision on Friday to set aside the Orissa high court order against allocation of an iron ore mine to steel major Posco - it has asked the Centre to examine objections and take a final decision - follows two other major court decisions. Early this month, the court dismissed a PIL challenging the Centre's policy allowing FDI in multibrand retail. And this week, it refused to entertain a petitioner's plea against the Vedanta-Cairn India deal by citing a CAG report indicating presumptive losses to the country. Taken together, these three decisions should help begin to clear the air of anxiety about notional objections setting off institutional blocks to executive policy decisions. The court has restored the balance, returning the power to make policy to the executive realm. It has heeded institutional propriety - specifically, the government's discretion to make policy on the strength of enjoying the confidence of the elected legislature.
</p>
<p align="justify">
Assorted observations by the Supreme Court deserve study. In the FDI case, it said, &quot;This court does not interfere in the policy matter unless the policy is unconstitutional, contrary to statutory provisions or arbitrary or irrational or there is total abuse of power.&quot; In the Vedanta case, the court noted the need to understand the risk that necessarily informs most project decisions, and drew a distinction between a mala fide deal and a risky one. Equally, it cautioned against taking the auditor's finding as the final word before it has cleared parliamentary scrutiny. As unexceptionable as these points are, amongst many others emphasised by the court, it is unlikely that they will be enough to inhibit the filing of frivolous objections aimed at stalling policy decisions in future. There is, of course, a limit to the extent courts themselves can go to put in place a standard by which to throw out, if not penalise, frivolous petitions. The task of raising the bar on how policy is debated, weighed and legally challenged lies in the executive and political sphere.
</p>
<p align="justify">
In fact, it is the tentativeness of governments, at the Centre and in the states, and of political spokespersons, in owning policy and articulating it so as to raise popular literacy, that results in the need for evaluation to be done in the judicial sphere. Whether it is because of lack of conviction or simply lazy, risk-averse politics, elected governments are letting the debate on a policy, and potentially its fate, move to the courtroom.
</p>',
'credit_writer' => 'The Indian Express, 11 May, 2013, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/not-in-the-court-room/1114296/',
'article_img' => '',
'article_img_thumb' => '',
'status' => (int) 1,
'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
'lang' => 'EN',
'category_id' => (int) 16,
'tag_keyword' => '',
'seo_url' => 'not-in-the-court-room-21048',
'meta_title' => null,
'meta_keywords' => null,
'meta_description' => null,
'noindex' => (int) 0,
'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
'most_visit_section_id' => null,
'article_big_img' => null,
'liveid' => (int) 21048,
'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'edate' => '',
'tags' => [
(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 2 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 3 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 4 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
],
'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
'[new]' => false,
'[accessible]' => [
'*' => true,
'id' => false
],
'[dirty]' => [],
'[original]' => [],
'[virtual]' => [],
'[hasErrors]' => false,
'[errors]' => [],
'[invalid]' => [],
'[repository]' => 'Articles'
}
$articleid = (int) 20903
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Not in the court room'
$metaKeywords = 'Supreme Court,CAG,POSCO,Mining,FDI'
$metaDesc = '
-The Indian Express
Three decisions by the apex court return the power to make policy to the executive
The Supreme Court's decision on Friday to set aside the Orissa high court order against allocation of an iron ore mine to steel major...'
$disp = '<div align="justify">-The Indian Express</div><p align="justify"><br /><em>Three decisions by the apex court return the power to make policy to the executive</em></p><p align="justify">The Supreme Court's decision on Friday to set aside the Orissa high court order against allocation of an iron ore mine to steel major Posco - it has asked the Centre to examine objections and take a final decision - follows two other major court decisions. Early this month, the court dismissed a PIL challenging the Centre's policy allowing FDI in multibrand retail. And this week, it refused to entertain a petitioner's plea against the Vedanta-Cairn India deal by citing a CAG report indicating presumptive losses to the country. Taken together, these three decisions should help begin to clear the air of anxiety about notional objections setting off institutional blocks to executive policy decisions. The court has restored the balance, returning the power to make policy to the executive realm. It has heeded institutional propriety - specifically, the government's discretion to make policy on the strength of enjoying the confidence of the elected legislature.</p><p align="justify">Assorted observations by the Supreme Court deserve study. In the FDI case, it said, &quot;This court does not interfere in the policy matter unless the policy is unconstitutional, contrary to statutory provisions or arbitrary or irrational or there is total abuse of power.&quot; In the Vedanta case, the court noted the need to understand the risk that necessarily informs most project decisions, and drew a distinction between a mala fide deal and a risky one. Equally, it cautioned against taking the auditor's finding as the final word before it has cleared parliamentary scrutiny. As unexceptionable as these points are, amongst many others emphasised by the court, it is unlikely that they will be enough to inhibit the filing of frivolous objections aimed at stalling policy decisions in future. There is, of course, a limit to the extent courts themselves can go to put in place a standard by which to throw out, if not penalise, frivolous petitions. The task of raising the bar on how policy is debated, weighed and legally challenged lies in the executive and political sphere.</p><p align="justify">In fact, it is the tentativeness of governments, at the Centre and in the states, and of political spokespersons, in owning policy and articulating it so as to raise popular literacy, that results in the need for evaluation to be done in the judicial sphere. Whether it is because of lack of conviction or simply lazy, risk-averse politics, elected governments are letting the debate on a policy, and potentially its fate, move to the courtroom.</p>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/not-in-the-court-room-21048.html"/>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
<link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
media="all"/>
<title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Not in the court room | Im4change.org</title>
<meta name="description" content="
-The Indian Express
Three decisions by the apex court return the power to make policy to the executive
The Supreme Court's decision on Friday to set aside the Orissa high court order against allocation of an iron ore mine to steel major..."/>
<script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
$(document).ready(function () {
var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
$("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
.attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
.load(function () {
pic_real_width = this.width; // Note: $(this).width() will not
pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
});
});
</script>
<style type="text/css">
@media screen {
div.divFooter {
display: block;
}
}
@media print {
.printbutton {
display: none !important;
}
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
<tr>
<td class="top_bg">
<div class="divFooter">
<img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td id="topspace"> </td>
</tr>
<tr id="topspace">
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
<form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="100%">
<h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
<strong>Not in the court room</strong></h1>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
<div align="justify">-The Indian Express</div><p align="justify"><br /><em>Three decisions by the apex court return the power to make policy to the executive</em></p><p align="justify">The Supreme Court's decision on Friday to set aside the Orissa high court order against allocation of an iron ore mine to steel major Posco - it has asked the Centre to examine objections and take a final decision - follows two other major court decisions. Early this month, the court dismissed a PIL challenging the Centre's policy allowing FDI in multibrand retail. And this week, it refused to entertain a petitioner's plea against the Vedanta-Cairn India deal by citing a CAG report indicating presumptive losses to the country. Taken together, these three decisions should help begin to clear the air of anxiety about notional objections setting off institutional blocks to executive policy decisions. The court has restored the balance, returning the power to make policy to the executive realm. It has heeded institutional propriety - specifically, the government's discretion to make policy on the strength of enjoying the confidence of the elected legislature.</p><p align="justify">Assorted observations by the Supreme Court deserve study. In the FDI case, it said, "This court does not interfere in the policy matter unless the policy is unconstitutional, contrary to statutory provisions or arbitrary or irrational or there is total abuse of power." In the Vedanta case, the court noted the need to understand the risk that necessarily informs most project decisions, and drew a distinction between a mala fide deal and a risky one. Equally, it cautioned against taking the auditor's finding as the final word before it has cleared parliamentary scrutiny. As unexceptionable as these points are, amongst many others emphasised by the court, it is unlikely that they will be enough to inhibit the filing of frivolous objections aimed at stalling policy decisions in future. There is, of course, a limit to the extent courts themselves can go to put in place a standard by which to throw out, if not penalise, frivolous petitions. The task of raising the bar on how policy is debated, weighed and legally challenged lies in the executive and political sphere.</p><p align="justify">In fact, it is the tentativeness of governments, at the Centre and in the states, and of political spokespersons, in owning policy and articulating it so as to raise popular literacy, that results in the need for evaluation to be done in the judicial sphere. Whether it is because of lack of conviction or simply lazy, risk-averse politics, elected governments are letting the debate on a policy, and potentially its fate, move to the courtroom.</p> </font>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
<form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
</td>
</tr>
</table></body>
</html>'
}
$cookies = []
$values = [
(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39
Notice (8): Undefined variable: urlPrefix [APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8]
$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {
'id' => (int) 20903,
'title' => 'Not in the court room',
'subheading' => '',
'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Indian Express
</div>
<p align="justify">
<br />
<em>Three decisions by the apex court return the power to make policy to the executive</em>
</p>
<p align="justify">
The Supreme Court's decision on Friday to set aside the Orissa high court order against allocation of an iron ore mine to steel major Posco - it has asked the Centre to examine objections and take a final decision - follows two other major court decisions. Early this month, the court dismissed a PIL challenging the Centre's policy allowing FDI in multibrand retail. And this week, it refused to entertain a petitioner's plea against the Vedanta-Cairn India deal by citing a CAG report indicating presumptive losses to the country. Taken together, these three decisions should help begin to clear the air of anxiety about notional objections setting off institutional blocks to executive policy decisions. The court has restored the balance, returning the power to make policy to the executive realm. It has heeded institutional propriety - specifically, the government's discretion to make policy on the strength of enjoying the confidence of the elected legislature.
</p>
<p align="justify">
Assorted observations by the Supreme Court deserve study. In the FDI case, it said, "This court does not interfere in the policy matter unless the policy is unconstitutional, contrary to statutory provisions or arbitrary or irrational or there is total abuse of power." In the Vedanta case, the court noted the need to understand the risk that necessarily informs most project decisions, and drew a distinction between a mala fide deal and a risky one. Equally, it cautioned against taking the auditor's finding as the final word before it has cleared parliamentary scrutiny. As unexceptionable as these points are, amongst many others emphasised by the court, it is unlikely that they will be enough to inhibit the filing of frivolous objections aimed at stalling policy decisions in future. There is, of course, a limit to the extent courts themselves can go to put in place a standard by which to throw out, if not penalise, frivolous petitions. The task of raising the bar on how policy is debated, weighed and legally challenged lies in the executive and political sphere.
</p>
<p align="justify">
In fact, it is the tentativeness of governments, at the Centre and in the states, and of political spokespersons, in owning policy and articulating it so as to raise popular literacy, that results in the need for evaluation to be done in the judicial sphere. Whether it is because of lack of conviction or simply lazy, risk-averse politics, elected governments are letting the debate on a policy, and potentially its fate, move to the courtroom.
</p>',
'credit_writer' => 'The Indian Express, 11 May, 2013, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/not-in-the-court-room/1114296/',
'article_img' => '',
'article_img_thumb' => '',
'status' => (int) 1,
'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
'lang' => 'EN',
'category_id' => (int) 16,
'tag_keyword' => '',
'seo_url' => 'not-in-the-court-room-21048',
'meta_title' => null,
'meta_keywords' => null,
'meta_description' => null,
'noindex' => (int) 0,
'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
'most_visit_section_id' => null,
'article_big_img' => null,
'liveid' => (int) 21048,
'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'edate' => '',
'tags' => [
[maximum depth reached]
],
'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
'[new]' => false,
'[accessible]' => [
[maximum depth reached]
],
'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[hasErrors]' => false,
'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[repository]' => 'Articles'
},
'articleid' => (int) 20903,
'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Not in the court room',
'metaKeywords' => 'Supreme Court,CAG,POSCO,Mining,FDI',
'metaDesc' => '
-The Indian Express
Three decisions by the apex court return the power to make policy to the executive
The Supreme Court's decision on Friday to set aside the Orissa high court order against allocation of an iron ore mine to steel major...',
'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Indian Express</div><p align="justify"><br /><em>Three decisions by the apex court return the power to make policy to the executive</em></p><p align="justify">The Supreme Court's decision on Friday to set aside the Orissa high court order against allocation of an iron ore mine to steel major Posco - it has asked the Centre to examine objections and take a final decision - follows two other major court decisions. Early this month, the court dismissed a PIL challenging the Centre's policy allowing FDI in multibrand retail. And this week, it refused to entertain a petitioner's plea against the Vedanta-Cairn India deal by citing a CAG report indicating presumptive losses to the country. Taken together, these three decisions should help begin to clear the air of anxiety about notional objections setting off institutional blocks to executive policy decisions. The court has restored the balance, returning the power to make policy to the executive realm. It has heeded institutional propriety - specifically, the government's discretion to make policy on the strength of enjoying the confidence of the elected legislature.</p><p align="justify">Assorted observations by the Supreme Court deserve study. In the FDI case, it said, "This court does not interfere in the policy matter unless the policy is unconstitutional, contrary to statutory provisions or arbitrary or irrational or there is total abuse of power." In the Vedanta case, the court noted the need to understand the risk that necessarily informs most project decisions, and drew a distinction between a mala fide deal and a risky one. Equally, it cautioned against taking the auditor's finding as the final word before it has cleared parliamentary scrutiny. As unexceptionable as these points are, amongst many others emphasised by the court, it is unlikely that they will be enough to inhibit the filing of frivolous objections aimed at stalling policy decisions in future. There is, of course, a limit to the extent courts themselves can go to put in place a standard by which to throw out, if not penalise, frivolous petitions. The task of raising the bar on how policy is debated, weighed and legally challenged lies in the executive and political sphere.</p><p align="justify">In fact, it is the tentativeness of governments, at the Centre and in the states, and of political spokespersons, in owning policy and articulating it so as to raise popular literacy, that results in the need for evaluation to be done in the judicial sphere. Whether it is because of lack of conviction or simply lazy, risk-averse politics, elected governments are letting the debate on a policy, and potentially its fate, move to the courtroom.</p>',
'lang' => 'English',
'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
'site_title' => 'im4change',
'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {
'id' => (int) 20903,
'title' => 'Not in the court room',
'subheading' => '',
'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Indian Express
</div>
<p align="justify">
<br />
<em>Three decisions by the apex court return the power to make policy to the executive</em>
</p>
<p align="justify">
The Supreme Court's decision on Friday to set aside the Orissa high court order against allocation of an iron ore mine to steel major Posco - it has asked the Centre to examine objections and take a final decision - follows two other major court decisions. Early this month, the court dismissed a PIL challenging the Centre's policy allowing FDI in multibrand retail. And this week, it refused to entertain a petitioner's plea against the Vedanta-Cairn India deal by citing a CAG report indicating presumptive losses to the country. Taken together, these three decisions should help begin to clear the air of anxiety about notional objections setting off institutional blocks to executive policy decisions. The court has restored the balance, returning the power to make policy to the executive realm. It has heeded institutional propriety - specifically, the government's discretion to make policy on the strength of enjoying the confidence of the elected legislature.
</p>
<p align="justify">
Assorted observations by the Supreme Court deserve study. In the FDI case, it said, "This court does not interfere in the policy matter unless the policy is unconstitutional, contrary to statutory provisions or arbitrary or irrational or there is total abuse of power." In the Vedanta case, the court noted the need to understand the risk that necessarily informs most project decisions, and drew a distinction between a mala fide deal and a risky one. Equally, it cautioned against taking the auditor's finding as the final word before it has cleared parliamentary scrutiny. As unexceptionable as these points are, amongst many others emphasised by the court, it is unlikely that they will be enough to inhibit the filing of frivolous objections aimed at stalling policy decisions in future. There is, of course, a limit to the extent courts themselves can go to put in place a standard by which to throw out, if not penalise, frivolous petitions. The task of raising the bar on how policy is debated, weighed and legally challenged lies in the executive and political sphere.
</p>
<p align="justify">
In fact, it is the tentativeness of governments, at the Centre and in the states, and of political spokespersons, in owning policy and articulating it so as to raise popular literacy, that results in the need for evaluation to be done in the judicial sphere. Whether it is because of lack of conviction or simply lazy, risk-averse politics, elected governments are letting the debate on a policy, and potentially its fate, move to the courtroom.
</p>',
'credit_writer' => 'The Indian Express, 11 May, 2013, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/not-in-the-court-room/1114296/',
'article_img' => '',
'article_img_thumb' => '',
'status' => (int) 1,
'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
'lang' => 'EN',
'category_id' => (int) 16,
'tag_keyword' => '',
'seo_url' => 'not-in-the-court-room-21048',
'meta_title' => null,
'meta_keywords' => null,
'meta_description' => null,
'noindex' => (int) 0,
'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
'most_visit_section_id' => null,
'article_big_img' => null,
'liveid' => (int) 21048,
'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'edate' => '',
'tags' => [
(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 2 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 3 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 4 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
],
'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
'[new]' => false,
'[accessible]' => [
'*' => true,
'id' => false
],
'[dirty]' => [],
'[original]' => [],
'[virtual]' => [],
'[hasErrors]' => false,
'[errors]' => [],
'[invalid]' => [],
'[repository]' => 'Articles'
}
$articleid = (int) 20903
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Not in the court room'
$metaKeywords = 'Supreme Court,CAG,POSCO,Mining,FDI'
$metaDesc = '
-The Indian Express
Three decisions by the apex court return the power to make policy to the executive
The Supreme Court's decision on Friday to set aside the Orissa high court order against allocation of an iron ore mine to steel major...'
$disp = '<div align="justify">-The Indian Express</div><p align="justify"><br /><em>Three decisions by the apex court return the power to make policy to the executive</em></p><p align="justify">The Supreme Court's decision on Friday to set aside the Orissa high court order against allocation of an iron ore mine to steel major Posco - it has asked the Centre to examine objections and take a final decision - follows two other major court decisions. Early this month, the court dismissed a PIL challenging the Centre's policy allowing FDI in multibrand retail. And this week, it refused to entertain a petitioner's plea against the Vedanta-Cairn India deal by citing a CAG report indicating presumptive losses to the country. Taken together, these three decisions should help begin to clear the air of anxiety about notional objections setting off institutional blocks to executive policy decisions. The court has restored the balance, returning the power to make policy to the executive realm. It has heeded institutional propriety - specifically, the government's discretion to make policy on the strength of enjoying the confidence of the elected legislature.</p><p align="justify">Assorted observations by the Supreme Court deserve study. In the FDI case, it said, "This court does not interfere in the policy matter unless the policy is unconstitutional, contrary to statutory provisions or arbitrary or irrational or there is total abuse of power." In the Vedanta case, the court noted the need to understand the risk that necessarily informs most project decisions, and drew a distinction between a mala fide deal and a risky one. Equally, it cautioned against taking the auditor's finding as the final word before it has cleared parliamentary scrutiny. As unexceptionable as these points are, amongst many others emphasised by the court, it is unlikely that they will be enough to inhibit the filing of frivolous objections aimed at stalling policy decisions in future. There is, of course, a limit to the extent courts themselves can go to put in place a standard by which to throw out, if not penalise, frivolous petitions. The task of raising the bar on how policy is debated, weighed and legally challenged lies in the executive and political sphere.</p><p align="justify">In fact, it is the tentativeness of governments, at the Centre and in the states, and of political spokespersons, in owning policy and articulating it so as to raise popular literacy, that results in the need for evaluation to be done in the judicial sphere. Whether it is because of lack of conviction or simply lazy, risk-averse politics, elected governments are letting the debate on a policy, and potentially its fate, move to the courtroom.</p>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'
include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
latest-news-updates/not-in-the-court-room-21048.html"/>
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Not in the court room | Im4change.org
Not in the court room
-The Indian Express
Three decisions by the apex court return the power to make policy to the executive
The Supreme Court's decision on Friday to set aside the Orissa high court order against allocation of an iron ore mine to steel major Posco - it has asked the Centre to examine objections and take a final decision - follows two other major court decisions. Early this month, the court dismissed a PIL challenging the Centre's policy allowing FDI in multibrand retail. And this week, it refused to entertain a petitioner's plea against the Vedanta-Cairn India deal by citing a CAG report indicating presumptive losses to the country. Taken together, these three decisions should help begin to clear the air of anxiety about notional objections setting off institutional blocks to executive policy decisions. The court has restored the balance, returning the power to make policy to the executive realm. It has heeded institutional propriety - specifically, the government's discretion to make policy on the strength of enjoying the confidence of the elected legislature.
Assorted observations by the Supreme Court deserve study. In the FDI case, it said, "This court does not interfere in the policy matter unless the policy is unconstitutional, contrary to statutory provisions or arbitrary or irrational or there is total abuse of power." In the Vedanta case, the court noted the need to understand the risk that necessarily informs most project decisions, and drew a distinction between a mala fide deal and a risky one. Equally, it cautioned against taking the auditor's finding as the final word before it has cleared parliamentary scrutiny. As unexceptionable as these points are, amongst many others emphasised by the court, it is unlikely that they will be enough to inhibit the filing of frivolous objections aimed at stalling policy decisions in future. There is, of course, a limit to the extent courts themselves can go to put in place a standard by which to throw out, if not penalise, frivolous petitions. The task of raising the bar on how policy is debated, weighed and legally challenged lies in the executive and political sphere.
In fact, it is the tentativeness of governments, at the Centre and in the states, and of political spokespersons, in owning policy and articulating it so as to raise popular literacy, that results in the need for evaluation to be done in the judicial sphere. Whether it is because of lack of conviction or simply lazy, risk-averse politics, elected governments are letting the debate on a policy, and potentially its fate, move to the courtroom.
