BINAYAK DATTA
IN one of Tagore’s greatest plays, Prayaschitta (atonement), Dhananjay, the hero who happens to be a peasant leader, remarks: “ …as the king, your duty was to give us justice and as subjects our duty was to pay you our taxes… and we won’t…. where’s the justice, and why the taxes?” In my view, the primary and unquestionably the most important function of any government is to see whether the system is able to do justice in all of its ramifications to citizens. I think a lot of our unease in doing business and our present-day cynicism stem from the question: whether the system works. And if yes, then when, how and in what way.
India 2020
I often wonder as what truly would the New India 2022 look like? Will it be an India where three crore court cases will remain pending in courts of which 20 per cent are more than 10 years old? Or will it be the India where consumer cases will await disposal for over seven years? Or say the India, where leading political parties most of them ruling – (either at the Centre or in big states) themselves delaying filing accounts inordinately? Or will it still be the India 60 per cent of whose wealth lies in the hands of 1 per cent of her people?
Then you start thinking, much like Tagore’s Dhananjay: if I can’t go to the king for justice where do I go to in my journey through the New India 2022?
No, I think none of our dreams could come true for a New India 2022 without radical administrative reforms. Citizens must be reassured that they will get justice within specified time scales in international benchmarks. The job of a government is much more than just to show a point more of GDP growth. The job of a government is to ensure governance for its citizens, and that job well done, reposes in my view unstinted support and ease of business within the system.
Quite a matter of concern now that the partitions of functions within the three pillars of our democracy – the legislature, the executive and the judiciary – are more and more getting blurred with each arm seen encroaching on the other with impunity.
In this week’s case for example, involving questions from a news portal on financial propriety relating to a business of the BJP chief’s son, you hear the additional solicitor general of India appearing for this private enterprise against the portal. Even if an executive approval was obtained, is it in order that the executive should approve a matter which predominantly involves the judiciary and a private individual? We also were treated to the spectacle of a Union minister stoutly defending transactions for this private individual! Nostalgically recall the Indira Gandhi era – and lo! Those days are back, or so it seems! So we saw the Chief Justice of India on his retirement appointed as governor of a state and reporting then to the executive. We saw multifarious ‘coincidences’ as well; we saw retired senior bureaucrats being appointed to constitutional positions like the CVC or the CEC and so on! One of the uniqueness of our Constitution in my view is the mechanism for separation of conflicts; and it would not be ideal, I think, to ensure haziness in this separation. If a judge is looking for a prized executive position on retirement, can he truly separate his functions from the latter?
Let’s now take the investigation process. It’s appalling that although in most cases it’s clear and brazen, who the culprits are, yet they roam scot-free particularly the rich and the mighty. Many of them avail safe getaways to prized locations before the brouhaha really starts in the mortal world!
In most big corruption cases the investigations never really conclude and after five years or more they are peacefully buried in obscurity. Come elections they will be exhumed, dusted, and would be referred to in high rhetoric public speeches only to be reburied decently after the elections! As if current investigations are now all up-to-date, there is talk of reopening investigation into the Mahatma Gandhi assassination now!
The investigative mechanism today comes under the executive – the PMO or the Union or state home ministries – as applicable. Does this then show either complete ineptitude or real-politik play? Just compare this: the Italian appeals court pronounced its orders in two years, long before we could even file a charge-sheet in the Agusta Westland case. In the Panama Leaks, we are yet to commence investigations even after two years of the leaks!
The next step is even more intriguing – and you can see the party in power continuously blurring its position with the executive itself. It is almost common place for politicians to instruct the police on their duties.
I recommend
Drastic reforms are needed in the administrative setup. The law and order function of the executive should be split up into two: a) the law enforcing machinery should remain with the executive, and b) the investigative mechanism should be either an independent fourth arm of the democracy under the Lokpal or should be placed under the judiciary. Our second Administrative Reforms Commission had supported this view but the recommendations ended up as usual in some obscure shelf!
In most countries the investigative machinery is divorced from the law enforcing machinery. In the US, the FBI is completely independent and it is not easy for the US President to fire the chief, unless he goes through the Supreme Court and the department of justice – James Comey was the second ever case from the inception. In the UK, the criminal investigation department and the London metropolitan police are separate entities. We must have this as well! Also, nowhere in the world – apart from the communist countries – do political parties mix up with the administration. The Election Commission must act against these practices.
The New India 2022 will call for transparency in administration and in justice. I suppose, like Tagore’s Dhananjay, that will remain the first and foremost expectation of citizens from the government.