Heed the homily, sir

As the one of India’s very ordinary citizens, the intricacies of governance is a little beyond me, as it must be amongst the vast population of the country. The Supreme Court’s response last week to a petition against tainted ministers caused a stir in political circles, and some lawyers termed it overstepping jurisdiction.  I hoped it was a ruling dramatic enough to shake the country out of its stupor.

 

In the Indian Parliamentary system, the Constitution clearly and ingeniously separates the powers of the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Like an equilateral triangle of power, each has pole position, and is a counter to the others. Their equidistance is a democratic necessity, maintained by check-and-balance to prevent the usurpation of power by any one, or connivance of two against the third. Nobody guards turf better than the members of the tripartite. They do not have to agree, and so, with metronomic regularity, they flex muscles to prove they do not. But in this case, certain politicians applauded the Court’s stand, which is a bit unusual. 

A public interest litigation was filed some ten years ago (against ministers of the last coalition government actually), asking the Court to disqualify ministers involved in cases. As it happens, thirteen ministers, almost a third of the present Administration, have lawsuits pending against them; some named the accused in criminal cases. Granted that at times, these may be frivolous, filed to create trouble, and that none of the charges have yet been proven. And, that this stalemate may continue for years, because delays in Court are easy to obtain by filing appeal after appeal. The point is we, of the almost silent majority, are tired of political sins, real or imaginary, being swept under the carpet of expediency.

On the campaign trail several months ago, news channels reported statements the Prime Ministerial candidate purportedly made, and I quote: 

Just give me one chance to clean the system. I will set up special courts under the supervision of the supreme court to try all the tainted MPs and MLAs, that too within [a] one-year time limit. After one year, those who are guilty will go to jail. 
 

These impressive words must have contributed at least a smidgen to his attaining office with sweeping majority a short time later. We are now well into the “one-year time limit” delineated. However, in the months that have passed since then, there has been a profound executive silence on the matter. 

 

The question often raised is that should the country meanwhile be deprived of the talents of the ministers in governance? In this there are no global cultural differences! The identical equation of worth is brought up whenever an incumbent is caught out or indicted for corruption of one type or another anywhere in the world. The standard of personal integrity should be held high and uncompromising, because the public arena is such a minefield of temptation. Power corrupts, said Hobbs so many decades ago, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The executive body knows, as does each member of the judiciary and the legislature, that thence, they are called to be above reproach.

The flawed character is prone to deviousness to cover up their lacks of honour, merit and commitment. Neither is there the moral centering and self-control needed in the job; they repeatedly falter, or take the easy way out, and then expect protection of the Institution. Its veil of immunity is probably what they count on, because surely they are well aware of the outcomes of indiscreet or corrupt activities.  

That quality of person has no business being there in the first place, and should indeed be kept out. This nation has survived more than five thousand years without their inputs and certainly can manage further. Yes, some have been falsely accused. They should have the grit to ride out the storm, and return exonerated, elevated to spotless in the eyes of the nation. Few though, can resist the lure of the kursi (chair)! 

I couldn’t figure where the Bench had overstepped its bounds in this particular case of public interest. Fact is they actually declined disqualification, and no surprise then that the politicians applauded! The Court claimed no Constitutional provision for it; it would tantamount to crossing the boundaries of judicial review. However, there was a sop for the many, many in the country that had hoped for a definitive directive.  Politicians convicted and sentenced are disqualified from elections, even if they are in the midst of filing appeals. Miniscule though it is, perhaps it is a wiggle of change in the right direction.

The 5-member Supreme Court Bench left the task of dealing with tainted ministers up to the discretion of the Prime Minister, the executive head of government. As reported in the news, and I quote, they said:

 

The Prime Minister, while living up to the trust reposed in him, would consider not choosing a person with criminal antecedents against whom charges have been framed for heinous or serious criminal offences or charges of corruption to become a minister of the council of ministers… This is what the Constitution suggests and that is the constitutional expectation from the Prime Minister. Rest has to be left to the wisdom of the Prime Minister. We say nothing more, nothing less.

Well, there we have it, the old and trusted check-and-balance at work! One body on the power triangle can go only so far. May be their hands are tied and they cannot issue directive to the Chief Ministers of states, and the Prime Minister of the Union. May be the “homily” was all that they are able deliver under the circumstances. But to the ordinary citizen, it could look like the suave passing of the buck characteristic of democracy – everybody’s business is nobody’s business.

 

It may also be that the Bench decided to serve a subtle reminder to the Prime Minister of his own words to the electorate in the run-up to the elections. They put the ball squarely in his court. Many of us remember that on several occasions before and after assuming office, swacch (clean) is the word he emphasized. On the national stage, he promised to prioritize clean rivers, clean environment and clean government. Even those that did not vote him to power were impressed with his forward-looking speeches. The hope being that acche din (good days) are really here, rather than merely in a catchy slogan.

It is owed to the country. For decades we have waited for our political leaders to lead the country into the light, and almost every time, we have be left with disillusionment. But still we believe that change is right around the corner. Lest he forget, they have taken oath to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India and to discharge their duties faithfully and conscientiously. The time for talk is over; it is now time to execute. That is why he is in office - to do in letter and spirit of the Constitution. The country must now await the outcome of the executive decision. Will the homily be heeded? Or will political expedience trump personal integrity?