Daily Archives: May 6, 2023

Justice Antonin Scalia.

In my last post, I summarized what I learned from Justice John Paul Stevens' papers on Kelo v. City of New London, the controversial 5-4 decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that the condemnation of homes for "private economic development" is permissible under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which only allows takings that are for a "public use." The papers were opened to the public earlier this week.

As noted in my previous post, one of the most interesting revelations in Stevens' files is that Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissent in the case, which he eventually chose not to publish. In this post, I reprint Scalia's dissent in its entirely (it's short!), and then offer some comments. Here's the dissent:

As JUSTICE O'CONNOR well explains, ante, at 1-2, 7-8 (dissenting opinion), the Court's decision today goes far beyond the holdings of our prior cases, and renders part of the Takings Clause a virtual nullity. Under the precedent set today, the Public Use requirement is effectively nonjusticiable. The political branches in the Federal Government and each State are left to administer it on the honor system.

It is hard to endure the Court's hymn of praise to "the best tradition of our federalist system," which permits "different communities" to use "political processes" to "strike the balance of costs and benefits in different ways." Ante, at 19. Why is it appropriate to sing that song in a case involving a real-live constitutional text clearly designed to constrain "political processes"; but to leave it unsung in the many cases involving phantom rights that the Court has summoned up from nowhere? The same Court that could fashion an enforceable constitutional entitlement out of every individual's "'right to define"' his or her '"own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,"' Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003) (quoting Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992) (plurality opinion)), today proclaims that the deeply felt "limits of [its] authority," ante, at 19, preclude it from enforcing a right that has been in the text of the Bill of Rights for more than two hundred years. The Court erects citadels in ultima Thule while leaving the Vandals unattended in Rome itself. This foolish disparity should not go unnoticed, nor (in the long run) uncorrected.

I respectfully dissent.

The Stevens files show that Scalia circulated this dissent on June 15, 2005, eight days before the Kelo decision was issued. He then withdrew it on June 21, after Justice Stevens removed the passages in his majority opinion that most incensed Scalia. Most notably, Stevens cut the references to "the best tradition of our federalist system" and allowing "different communities" to use "political processes" to "strike the balance of costs and benefits in different ways."

For the most part, Justice Scalia's dissent echoes themes from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's lead dissent, which he had already agreed to join. For example, both emphasize that the majority essentially gutted public use restrictions on takings.

The main distinctive point Scalia makes is the contrast between the majority's unwillingness to enforce an explicit enumerated constitutional right (the Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment) and its far greater solicitude for unenumerated "substantive due process" constitutional rights such as those enforced in Lawrence v. Texas (striking down laws banning same-sex sexual relations), and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (abortion). The latter was a longtime major concern of Scalia's (who forcefully dissented in both Lawrence and Casey).

It is interesting that Scalia withdrew the dissent after Stevens made changes to the wording of the majority. Although Stevens removed the specific phrases Scalia complained about, the substance of the opinion did not meaningfully change. It still treats the Public Use Clause much less favorably than various unenumerated rights. And it still cites federalism and diverse local needs as a justification for deferring to local authorities on public use issues:

Viewed as a whole, our jurisprudence has recognized that the needs of society have varied between different parts of the Nation, just as they have evolved over time in response to changed circumstances. Our earliest cases in particular embodied a strong theme of federalism, emphasizing the "great respect" that we owe to state legislatures and state courts in discerning local public needs.

Ironically, just 17 days before Kelo was issued, and nine days before Scalia circulated his dissent, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Gonzales v. Raich, which held that Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce was so broad that it allowed it to ban the possession of medical marijuana that had never crossed state lines or been sold in any market, even within a state. Justice Stevens was the author of the majority opinion in Raich, just like in Kelo. Raich was a deeply flawed ruling that expanded federal power further than any previous Supreme Court decisions, and ran roughshod over state diversity and autonomy. There is an obvious tension between Stevens' paeans to state and local autonomy in Kelo and his endorsement of extraordinarily broad federal power in Raich.

Scalia could and should have called out Stevens and the four other justices who were in the majority in both Raich and Kelo on this contradiction. But he was ill-positioned to do so, because he himself had also voted for the federal government in Raich, albeit in a concurring opinion that used different reasoning than the majority. In my view, this was one of Scalia's worst opinions.

In sum, Scalia was right to highlight the flaws in Stevens' appeal to federalism and local diversity. But his own role in the Raich case prevented him from pointing out the full extent of the contradiction in the majority's position.

There are two interesting unanswered questions surrounding Scalia's unpublished dissent. First, it is not clear why Scalia withdrew the dissent in response to what were largely rhetorical revisions to the majority opinion that failed to address his substantive concerns. Second, as noted in my last post, it is hard to explain why Scaliathe Court's leading champion of originalismsaid virtually nothing about the original meaning of "public use" in his opinion, and chose not to join Justice Clarence Thomas' strong originalist dissent.

Despite withdrawing this dissent, Scalia still joined Justice O'Connor's forceful dissenting opinion. In later years, he continued to denounce the Kelo decision and predicted that it would one day be overruled (a prospect he welcomed). I hope he turns out to be the right on that last point.

Read the rest here:

Justice Scalia's Unpublished Dissent in Kelo v. City of New London - Reason

In the run up, those final five days before polling on May 10, efforts by citizens and civil society over past months and week are interesting to note. Without an active citizenry taking part in the election process can the electoral process be held accountable? Can issues of social justice significance be brought centre stage to politics? Karnataka shows us the way

Over 5,000 gritty citizens volunteers are slogging it off in the heat and dust of the ongoing May elections in the southern state of Karnataka. While political sloganeering of the opposition has centered on the 40 % commission corruption alleged to be the way of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government, and a slew of welfare schemes thrown in as positive measure, what is the present Karnataka governments report card on education, literacy, job and human indices index?

One such citizens collective, Bahutva Karnataka, has released a set of Report Cards holding government and governance to account. In the words of the collective, These report cards are intended to enable the public to not just hold the government to account, but also to make an informed choice as they choose the next government.

Information is power and the correct information and perspective can help you choose your government wisely. The reports are available in English and Kannada here:

On standards of Democracy Denying Peoples Participation, Violating the Peoples mandate, Transparency and Corruption, Free and Fair Elections, no Uniform Application of the Rule of Law, Stifling Dissent, Derailing Associated Living.

The state government fairs poorly, its a Grade F!

On Governance

On Federalism too, the state government has faired badly with a Grade F! Criterea and categories ae Karnatakas decreasing share of tax revenue, Imposition of Hindi, Maha Dayi Water Sharing Dispute Resolution, Delay in Natural Calamity Relief Funds, Encroachment on State Subjects, State Government Remote Controlled from Delhi, Decline of Cooperative Federalism

On Womens Rights the categories are judged are Violence against Women, Women in the Informal sector, Moral Policing, the Bogey of Love Jihad, Patriarchial Attitudes and the Success and Reach of the Beti Bachao Beti Padhao scheme of the union government. The BJP government gets Grade G!

On Religious Minorities: Targeting of Muslims, Hate Crimes against Christians, Vigilantism, Anti Conversion Laws, Cow Slauhter laws an assessment of this together gives the state a poor grade F!

Economy & Fiscal Management

Slum Residents Rights

Rural Development

Education

Healthcare

Key Laws Passed

Nutrition: the grade is D with categories being poor Quality of Mid Day meals, Disruption in Dry Ration supplied to Children and Women, Limited Supply of Eggs, No Post Pandemic Surveys on Malnutrition, Covid Mismangamenent, Disruption on Milk Supply to Children, Restriction on Meat, Push for Satvic Food. The tick mark is a welcome move on Poultry farming.

Environment

Agriculture

Labour

Go here to see the original:

Citizens, civil society hold the ruling party, BJP to account ... - SabrangIndia

On April 13, 2023, the Department of Education (ED) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance: Sex-Related Eligibility Criteria for Male and Female Athletic Teams. This Athletics NPRM would establish a new regulatory standard under Title IX that would govern sex-related criteria as it relates to gender identity for participation on sex-specific athletics teams at federally funded educational institutions. The 32-day public comment period closes on Monday, May 15.

In July 2022, when ED issued a proposed Title IX rule that would expand Title IXs sex discrimination prohibition to prohibit discrimination based on gender identity (among other things), the Department promised it would issue a separate NPRM to address whether and how ED should amend its current athletics regulation and the question of what criteria, if any, recipients should be permitted to use to establish students eligibility to participate on a particular male or female athletics team.

Proposed Regulatory Standard

Under the current athletics regulation, originally promulgated in 1980, educational institutions may operate or sponsor separate teams for members of each sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport.

According to ED, the current athletics regulation isnt sufficiently clear to ensure Title IXs nondiscrimination requirement is satisfied. The proposed regulatory standard would provide needed clarity and would not affect a recipients discretion to offer sex-specific teams based on competitive skill or for contact sports.

Citing to Bostock v. Clayton County, Executive Order 13988 on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation, Executive Order 14021 on Guaranteeing an Educational Environment Free from Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, Including Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, the Department proposes the following regulatory text:

If a recipient adopts or applies sex- related criteria that would limit or deny a students eligibility to participate on a male or female team consistent with their gender identity, such criteria must, for each sport, level of competition, and grade or education level: (i) Be substantially related to the achievement of an important educational objective; and (ii) Minimize harms to students whose opportunity to participate on a male or female team consistent with their gender identity would be limited or denied.

In crafting its proposal, ED conducted an extensive review of Title IXs implementing regulations, statutory text, and legislative history; federal and state case law (including Hecox v. Little, A.M. v. Indianapolis Public Schools, and B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education); relevant state laws; current athletic policies; public comments received during a June 2021 nationwide virtual public hearing on Title IX; and other information provided by stakeholders.

According to the NPRM, the proposed standard was informed by the current Title IX regulation governing single-sex classes and Equal Protection Clause caselaw, and is consistent with Title IXs nondiscrimination prohibition and the framework of the current athletics regulations.

Criteria for Each Sport, Level of Competition, and Grade or Education Level

Under the proposed regulatory standard, any sex-specific policy that does not permit participation based on gender identity would have to be evaluated based on (a) sport, (b) level of competition, and (c) the grade or education level. Indeed, the NPRM states that criteria that categorically exclude all transgender girls and women from participating on any female athletic teams would not satisfy the proposed standard because they would take a one-size-fits-all approach and rely on overbroad generalizations that are not specific to the sport, level of competition, and grade or education level to which they apply.

Without elaboration, the Department declares that it currently believes there are few, if any, sex-related eligibility criteria applicable to students in elementary school that would comply with the proposed standard. ED further believes it would also be particularly difficult for a policy that excludes students immediately following elementary school from participating on sex-specific teams consistent with their gender identity to comply with the standard. If adopted, this view would likely undermine any sex-specific distinctions for athletics in elementary schools.

Even in high schools and colleges, the level of evaluation required under the NPRM places an onerous burden on recipients seeking to adopt any sex-specific policy based on biology and provides a large incentive to adopt a blanket policy allowing participation based on gender identity for all sex-specific athletic teams.

Nevertheless, ED anticipates that some uses of sex-related eligibility criteria would satisfy the proposed standard in some sports, grade and education levels, and levels of competition (emphasis added).

Substantially Related to the Achievement of an Important Educational Objective

Under the proposed regulatory standard, any sex-specific policy must be based on a direct, substantial relationship between a recipients objective and the means used to achieve that objective.

ED acknowledges that ensuring fairness in competition and prevention of sports-related injury are possible important educational objectives, but is quick to point that that those interests do not necessarily require schools to adopt or apply sex-related criteria that would limit or deny a students eligibility to participate on a male or female team consistent with their gender identity. The NPRM points to alternative strategies and mitigating measures that could be taken instead, such as appropriate coaching and training, requiring use of protective equipment, and specifying rules of play.

According to the Department, the following would not qualify as an important educational objective:

Communicating or codifying disapproval of a student or a students gender identity;

Adoption solely for the purpose of excluding transgender students from sports;

Requiring adherence to sex stereotypes;

Adoption solely for the purpose of administrative convenience; or

As a pretext for an impermissible interest in singling out transgender students for disapproval or harm.

The NPRM emphasizes that any criteria must not rely on overly broad generalizations about male and female students talents, capacities, or preferences, noting that very few female student-athletes are transgender and transgender students do not necessarily have greater physical or athletic ability than cisgender students that would affect cisgender students equal opportunity to participate. As such, criteria that assume all transgender girls and women possess an unfair physical advantage over cisgender girls and women in every sport, level of competition, and grade or education level would rely on an impermissible generalization.

Benefits, Harms, and Costs

ED identifies two benefits of its proposal: (i) providing a standard to clarify Title IX obligations for recipients that adopt or apply sex-related eligibility criteria, and (ii) protecting students equal opportunity to participate on male and female teams consistent with Title IX.

Without the proposed regulation, ED claims some students may suffer harm as a result of being unable to gain the benefits associated with equal opportunity to participate on athletic teams at school because participation on a team inconsistent with a students gender identity is not a viable option for many students. No mention is made of any harm to other students, especially female athletes who could be denied equal opportunity to participate under the Departments proposal.

ED estimates that the cost to recipients over 10 years would be in the range of $23.4 million to $24.4 million, which seems low considering the number of schools that receive federal funding, the time needed to evaluate existing athletic policies for compliance, and the regular trainings on the policies.

Nevertheless, ED concludes that the benefits far outweigh the costs.

Federalism Concerns

As recognized in the NPRM, at least twenty states have passed laws that prevent biological males, regardless of how they identify, from joining female-specific athletic teams.

The Department acknowledges (without elaboration) that its proposal may have federalism implications or substantial direct effects on the states or the relationship between stated and the federal government. It is clear that the proposed regulation conflicts with state laws, setting up a legal battle between ED and those states if and when the proposed rule is finalized.

Opportunity for Public Comment

ED is accepting public comments on the Athletics NPRM until Monday, May 15, which can be submitted here. To learn more about public comments on agency rulemaking, see the Ethics and Public Policy Centers one-page explainer.

Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public policy matters. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author. To join the debate, please email us atinfo@fedsoc.org.

More:

ED Proposes Title IX Athletics Rule Requiring Participation Based ... - The Federalist Society

During a press conference to update members of the press on the ongoing situation in Manipur, the head of Manipurs state police made an unusual statement. According to the officer, Article 355 of the Indian Constitution was imposed in the state, and as a result, the Union government assigned a security advisor to the state government.

What is Article 355, and how is it imposed under the Indian Constitution?

Article 355 is found in part XVIII of the Indian constitution which contains emergency provisions that are meant to be used in extremely rare circumstances. This section of the constitution empowers the Union government to declare a state of emergency (through Article 352) or, in other cases, Presidents Rule in a particular state of the Union (through Article 356).

355. It shall be the duty of the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the Government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.

A study of the bare provision of Article 355 reveals that it imposes a duty on the Union government to protect states in the event of external aggression and internal disturbance. The article also requires the Union government to ensure that the government of each state in the Union is carried on in accordance with the provisions of this constitution.

Advertisement

Advertisement

To understand the scope of Article 355s application, we need to examine the intention of the constitutions drafters when they decided to include this article in it.

Article 355, as it currently exists, was not in the 1948 draft constitution, and was only added in September 1949 (as draft Article 277A). It was inserted with the objective of providing a legitimate ground for the application of Article 356 of the constitution, which allows the Union government to issue a proclamation of Presidents Rule in a specific state.

Because imposing Presidents Rule in a state is considered an extreme measure, the drafters of the constitution felt this insertion was necessary. It is thought to be so because it has the effect of removing a states ability to govern itself. It is important to note that when Presidents Rule is proclaimed in a particular state, the Union government assumes the authority to govern that state, including the ability to make decisions that would normally be made by the state government. Furthermore, the imposition of Presidents Rule transfers powers from a states legislative assembly to the national parliament.

Because the drafters of the constitution recognised the broad power vested in Article 356, it was thought necessary to include another article to ensure that the imposition of Article 356 would not be viewed as an arbitrary exercise of the Union governments authority. Because of this recognition, the drafting committee inserted Article 355 into the constitution.

For these reasons, it is clear that the constitution contemplates the imposition of Article 356 as flowing from the duty imposed on the Union government by Article 355.

Circumstances under which Article 355 can be used

The constituent assembly debates show that the drafters of the constitution were concerned about the abuse of the emergency provisions in Part XVIII of the constitution. In one instance, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar is quoted as saying that the powers granted by Articles 355 and 356 should be used with caution. He stated during a debate of the constituent assembly in August 1949 that the proper thing we ought to expect is that such articles will never be called into operation and that they would remain a dead letter. If at all, they are brought into operation, I hope the president, who is endowed with all these powers, will take proper precautions before actually suspending the administration of the provinces.

As a result, it is understood that emergency provisions, such as Articles 355 and 356 of the constitution, can only be imposed in emergent situations. This appreciation has ensured that the provisions in Part XVIII of the constitution include constitutional safeguards that help ensure they are not abused arbitrarily by authoritarian actions from New Delhi. When these safeguards are violated, citizens have the right to petition the courts to test those actions against the principles enshrined in the constitution.

The mysterious case of application of Article 355 in Manipur

Given this understanding of Article 355 and the scope of its application, it is important to consider whether the article can be independently applied by the Union government in a specific circumstance.

In the past, courts have ruled on the constitutionality of legislation based on an examination of the duty imposed on the Union government by Article 355. This includes the cases of Naga Peoples Human Rights Movement v. Union of India (1997) and Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005).

However, it is important to consider the argument that the Union government cannot use Article 355s independent application to intervene in matters that fall under the purview of a state government. This argument is supported, in particular, by Justice Sawants opinion in S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994). Justice Sawants opinion held that the duty conferred on the Union government by Article 355 is a justification for the imposition of Articles 356 and 357, rather than an independent source of power that the Union government can use to interfere with the functioning of a state government. Instances such as the one in Manipur therefore present a questionable application of Article 355.

The argument is further supported by the constitutions recognition of Indias federal character. It is important to keep in mind that allowing the Union government to use Article 355 on its own to intervene in the domain of a state government would be detrimental to federalism in the long run.

To make matters worse, the imposition of Article 355 in Manipur is particularly troubling due to how this was communicated to the public. An elected MLA a member of the ruling party tweeted that Article 355 had been implemented in the state, which was an indication that it had been imposed. Following that, the head of the state police suggested during a press conference that Article 355 was imposed.

It is important to note that, as of late Saturday night, no formal order has been issued by the Union government to impose or invoke Article 355 in Manipur. This opens up two possibilities. Either the statements made by the two responsible public officials are incorrect, or the Union government secretly imposed Article 355 in the state without making the decision public. If the latter is correct, it raises serious concerns because such a decision, made in the absence of a legal, published announcement, may be considered unlawful.

Much remains to be seen in the development of this case, and it is critical that we pay close attention to how it develops, given the broad implications for our democratic society.

Jade Lyngdoh is a Constitutional Law honours candidate at National Law University, Jodhpur, where he has been a Meta India Tech Scholar. He contributes to The Wire, and is interested in the intersection of technology law and policy and human rights.

See the original post:

The Mysterious Case of the Imposition of Article 355 in Manipur - The Wire

Jalandhar (Pb), May 6: Union minister Jitendra Singh on Saturday claimed non-BJP state governments are not exercising accountability and allowing pilferage and wastage of central funds.Addressing a press conference here as part of campaigning for the by-poll, he said the Bhagwant Mann-led Punjab government has been accusing the Centre of holding back funds for the state.However, the matter of fact is that the earlier grants obtained by the state government from the Centre were never utilised for the purpose for which they were meant, Singh, the Minister of State for Personnel, said.The central grants were used for their own priorities, and now for the release of further funds from the Centre when utilisation certificates (UCs) are being sought, they are unable to produce the same, he added.Many of the central grants instead of being used for development projects are being used for self-publicity through advertisements in newspapers and other media, and for organising extravagant programmes for the publicity of the AAP leaders, the minister said.Singh said non-BJP state governments are not exercising accountability, whereas in BJP-ruled states, there is absolute accountability and answerability to the central high command and Prime Minister Narendra Modis welfare schemes are seriously followed up and accounted for.Drawing another parallel, he said in the non-BJP states, not only do they allow the pilferage and wastage of central funds, but the schemes are also not implemented seriously, and they do not hold themselves accountable.The Union minister also expressed concern about growing lawlessness and state of anarchy in the state of Punjab, and vowed that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is committed to restore the ethos of brotherhood, nationalism and mutual harmony among the people in the state.Talking about the Delhi government, Singh said nothing can be more unfortunate than the fact with the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) ruling the city, nearly three or four ministers are behind bars facing CBI and ED charges of corruption and misappropriation of funds.He said Modi had envisioned developing such an administrative ecosystem for a developed India, which has zero-tolerance for corruption, but the AAP-led government in the state of Punjab has been creating roadblocks towards creating such a corruption free ecosystem by delaying implementation of transformative reforms undertaken by the BJP-led central government.He said it is in the interest of the people to benefit from the central funds which are very meticulously provided by the Modi government.The Modi government has always followed the policy of cooperative federalism and also increased the state government share of funds. This is quite in contrast to what was happening during the UPA-run central government where the Gujarat government led by the BJP was always put to all kinds of intimidation and harassment by the then UPA-led central government and false CBI cases were filed which later could not be proved, the minister added. (Agencies)

See the rest here:

Non-BJP State Governments Not Exercising Accountability, Allowing ... - Daily Excelsior

On a pleasant Sunday morning last August, The Times of Indias Happy Streets on Anna Nagar Second Avenue had an important visitor. Just when the first beams of the rising sun filtered through the canopy of the avenue trees, chief minister M K Stalin joined people who sang, danced and played games on the road. Wearing a red T-shirt, tracks and sneakers, Stalin walked and cycled the stretch, shaking hands with residents, playing table tennis and badminton with them, and giving them fitness tips. I wake up at 5am, he told them. I stay young because I exercise. Two months later, Stalin told the DMK general council that he was having sleepless nights. I wake up with the worrying thought of whether our party seniors, cadres or ministers have said or done something wrong. This is giving me sleepless nights. That must be tough on a chief minister who wakes up early for day-long exercises that are more than physical. Its not the opposition, the governor or the Centre thats giving Stalin a headache; his pain points are within his party and the government. On the governance front, Stalin has made some definitive strides. He has let his finance minister Palanivel Thiaga Rajan to adopt some strong and unpopular fiscal measures to salvage the states economy and put it on the road to the one trillion-dollar Tamil Nadu destination. While powering this journey are the engines of manufacturing automobiles, electric vehicles, footwear, textiles and information technology/ startups, the governments policy seems to ensure that the vehicle of growth goes beyond the capital city to provide jobs and opportunities for smaller towns and the states hinterlands.The governments policies and programmes to take education and health to the peoples doorsteps have made a good start, the chief ministers public outreach programme has set an example for his ministers. While continuing with some coffer-draining doles, the government has been able to keep its focus on welfare measures. But this will be a trickier job when it moves into the third year that demands further fiscal discipline, and the next two when the ruling DMK prepares for another election. On the political front, the opposition AIADMK has not been much of a problem for the ruling party, but it has been spending more time on verbal duels with the governor and the Centre defending its Dravidian model of governance and federalism. The national social justice movement, which Stalin seeks to lead, would be a front that pushes this agenda. Stalins bigger problems have come from his own flank. Some of the government moves such as amending labour and liquor rules backfired (some blame the bureaucracy for it). Dealing blows to the partys attempts at an image makeover, a minister slapped a party councillor in public, another threw a stone at a party member who delayed bringing him a chair, many others have made speeches that embarrassed Stalin. Just when he thought he had disciplined the rogue elements came the PTR tapes audio recordings that BJP state president K Annamalai released that implicated the finance minister as speaking about the chief ministers family members son Udhayanidhi and son-in-law Sabareesan amassing wealth. The authenticity of the tapes may never be proved, but they have triggered discussions on corruption. Good governance will let Stalin bask in the glory of his governments performance as he faces the next election, but anything wrong done by anyone in the system will also fall on him. If it doesnt rain, I will be blamed, Stalin said at the October general council meeting of the DMK. As the opposition waits for its thunder, Stalin can expect a flood of allegations. As he sets sail towards the coming years, Stalin may not be able to stop the rain, but he should be able to plug the leaks.

Originally posted here:

Two years of Stalin government in Tamil Nadu: Two steps forward - Times of India