Judge Saini has ruled that there was no material on record to show that P Chidambaram was acting in a mala fide way in fixing the price of spectrum at the 2001 level or in permitting dilution of equity by the two companies-Swan and Unitech.
This judgment naturally has caused much joy and celebration in Congress. Kapil Sibal has even asked BJP to apologise. Let me, therefore, begin by apologising comprehensively and from the very beginning:
I apologise for the Partition of India; for the lingering Jammu and Kashmir issue and for not resolving it at Simla in 1972; I apologise for India spurning the offer to join the Security Council as a permanent member when it was offered at the time of independence; for the defeat of India in the 1962 war with China and the vexed boundary problem; I apologise for the Hindu rate of growth of 3% for the first three decades of Independence and for all the poverty, deprivation and inequality; I apologise for the massacre of Sikhs in the country in 1984; I apologise for the more recent events like the Army Chief's age row; for the Antrix-Devas deal and for punishing scientists of the eminence of Madhavan Nair without giving them an opportunity for explanation; for the PMO not keeping the PM informed of the 2G scam; for the Supreme Court cancelling the 2G licences; for the CWG scam, the Air India scam, the KG Basin scam, the Adarsh Society scam and for all the other scams for which this government is being wrongly blamed.
I apologise for the policy paralysis in the government, for the rising fiscal and current account deficits, for the slowing down of the economy.
In fact, I am prepared to prostrate myself before Kapil Sibal and apologise repeatedly and profusely to him for all that is wrong with India. After all, if the people of India had not made the mistake of making Vajpayee the Prime Minister of India for six years and Congress had ruled instead, none of this would have happened and India would have been a land where milk and honey flows. Alas, but for those six years!
After satisfying Kapil Sibal with this comprehensive apology, I would like to proceed further with his permission. Judge Saini has said that there is no material on record to show that Chidambaram was acting mala fide. Since CBI would not even question Chidambaram, the responsibility of collecting the evidence against him fell on public spirited citizens like Subramanian Swamy who could only produce the material he was able to get.
The least the judge could have done was to have asked CBI to investigate the matter further. But he did not think it fit to do so. The judge has also erred in observing that a decision taken by a public servant does not become criminal for the simple reason that it has caused loss to the public exchequer or has resulted in pecuniary advantage to others.
His observation that merely attending meetings and taking decisions therein is not a criminal act and that there must be abuse of his official position by the public servant for obtaining pecuniary advantage by him for himself or for any other person or obtaining pecuniary advantage by him without any public interest will be music to the ears of those who are accused in the 2G case.
After all, the Supreme Court has cancelled all 122 licences on the ground that they did not serve any public interest.
On the other hand, according to judge Saini, Chidambaram's action was not without public interest. While hearing the appeal, therefore, the Supreme Court will have to decide once again whether public interest was served by issuing these 122 licences or not; and if it was not served then judge Saini is in error. But let the law take its own course.
In our system of parliamentary democracy there are three types of accountability - moral, constitutional and legal which includes criminal. In the instant case Chidambaram has been let off for the time being by the first court as far as criminal liability is concerned. We shall wait to see what happens in appeal before the superior courts.
But, what about constitutional and moral responsibility? In a parliamentary democracy it's the minister who is constitutionally accountable to Parliament for all acts of omission and commission of ministries/departments under his charge.
Additionally, the entire Cabinet headed by the prime minister is collectively responsible to Parliament specially the Lok Sabha for the acts of omission and commission of the entire governmental machinery. Under this arrangement, if Chidambaram was a party to the decisions taken by Raja, he is accountable for it before Parliament.
If the issuance of 122 licences by Raja was wrong, Chidambaram is equally accountable constitutionally for that wrong because he agreed with Raja and caused a loss of thousands of crores of rupees to the exchequer.
The Supreme Court, by blaming the PMO and absolving the PM, has turned this principle of accountability on its head. The PMO is not a ministry; it's the personal office of the prime minister. It's like blaming the personal secretary to a minister rather than the minister himself for his acts of wrong-doing. This distinction is not valid in a parliamentary system of government.
Finally, as far as moral responsibility is concerned, it is useless to even talk about it. Morality has become a rare commodity in politics. It's so rare that nobody takes any moral responsibility for anything these days. Many years ago, I remember seeing a cartoon by RK Laxman where, for a wrong decision taken, the blame was being put on the peon who carried the file. It was a joke then, it's a reality now.
Source: Economic Times
0 comments:
Post a Comment