24 Asia The EconomistJanuary 20th 2018
2 100,000 baht a year—some 11m people.
They can spend it only on approved goods,
such as rice and soap, and only in certain
shops. The poorer people are, the more
they receive. The government took months
to get the registration process right, to be
sure it was including only the truly needy,
says Nathporn Chatusripitak of the deputy
prime minister’s office. Next month gov-
ernment workers will start meeting those
with cards to help them manage their fi-
nances and enroll in schemes to improve
their incomes, he says. Poor farmers will be
taught to grow new, more lucrative crops,
better suited to the local environment. The
scheme aims to stop the “vicious cycle” of
dependence on crop-price subsidies, says
Mr Nathporn.
In short, the generals have taken a leaf
from the Shinawatras’ book, and are win-ning support as a result. What is more, dis-
enchantment with politicians persists
even though the army has squashed Thai-
land’s democracy. A law banning political
gatherings of more than five people means
that parties will struggle to create and pub-
licise policies zappy enough to entice vot-
ers. Besides, under the constitution Thais
approved in a referendum 18 months ago,
the army will select the entirety of Thai-
land’s upper house and will need the back-
ing of just a quarter of elected lawmakers
to secure their choice of prime minister.
Many in Isaan assume that Prayuth Chan-
ocha, the junta leader, will remain prime
minister even if elections take place. One
village boss believes he will be tainted in
the process: “If he runs in the election he
won’t be as strong as he is now. He will be-
come a politician.” 7F
OR the biggest constitutional crisis in a
generation, as some have labelled the
drama currently roiling India’s courts, the
setting and the action proved disingenu-
ously genteel. On January 12th four Su-
preme Court judges hosted an impromptu
tea on the lawn of a grace-and-favour bun-
galow off a tree-lined New Delhi avenue.
Enthroned in plastic chairs, the solemn
judges revealed to puzzled reporters that
two months earlier they had addressed a
letter to India’s chiefjustice. Having re-
ceived no satisfactory answer, they would
now make its contents public.
In the manner of India’s often prolix
court rulings, their text meandered before
reaching its point: “There have been in-
stances where cases having far-reaching
consequences for the nation and the insti-
tution have been assigned by the chief jus-
tices of this court selectively to the benches
‘of their preference’ without any rational
basis for such assignment.” In short, the
frumpish foursome were suggesting that
holders of the top judicial office, current
and former, tried to influence justice by
shunting cases towards particular judges.
That is indeed a serious charge. As in
America, another large and tumultuous
democracy, the Supreme Court plays an es-
sential role not only as a final legal arbiter
but also as a counterweight to the caprice
of the executive and legislative branches.
Yet unlike America’s nine Supreme Court
justices, India’s 31 (that is their constitution-
ally ordained strength; the actual number
varies and is currently 25) never sit as agroup. Instead the chief justice, normally
the court’s longest-serving judge, has the
job of choosing when to hear cases and
then ofassigning each to a “bench” of two
or more justices.
In theory, these powers help justice to
be done, by allowing the court to hear
cases faster, and the chief justice to acceler-
ate the most pressing ones and steer tech-
nical subjects to judges with the relevant
expertise. But they also allow the chief jus-
tice to ignore, speed or delay certain dos-
siers for less edifying reasons, and to feed
controversial cases to colleagues whose re-
cords suggest a particular outcome. He (nowomen have held the post) can even with-
draw a case from a bench after it has been
assigned, or reconstitute a bench at will.
There is nothing new to charges that
chief justices abuse their power as “master
of the roster”. Whatis new is for com-
plaints to emerge from within the Vatican-
like Supreme Court itself, a break with a
collegial tradition that has typically seen
judges close ranks to protect even garishly
corrupt colleagues. The four dissident
judges are not lightweights; they are the
next four in seniority to the chiefjustice
himself. One of their complaints is that the
current chief justice, Dipak Misra, appears
routinely to have assigned controversial
cases to junior judges.
Mr Misra, who took office in August and
is due to retire in October, has not respond-
ed to the charges. Perhaps he expects this
cloud to blow over, as others have in the
past. The trouble is that there is not just one
recent case whose handling has raised eye-
brows, but several.
Two of these touch upon Mr Misra him-
self. One involves the suicide note written
by an ousted chief minister ofthe state of
Arunachal Pradesh, detailing allegations
that Supreme Court judges including Mr
Misra (before he became chief justice) had
demanded a bribe of some $13m to rule in
his favour in the case that ended up depriv-
ing him of office—and driving him to hang
himself. The other is a case against a medi-
cal school that lost its license, and allegedly
tried to get it back by bribing the Supreme
Court. Although Mr Misra himself sat on
the bench that investigators say was of-
fered the bribe, and which passed a string
of rulings favourable to the school, rather
than recuse himself from the subsequent
bribery case, the chief justice assigned itto
a bench that he himself chairs. The govern-
ment, meanwhile, is counting on favour-
able rulings in a slew of brewing cases. It is
an awkward time for Mr Misra’s own col-
leagues to accuse him of partiality. 7India’s Supreme CourtBench press
DELHI
Seniorjudges accuse their boss ofmanipulating the systemMr Misra is keeping mum