The Hindu Business Line : A `system' going downhill

The other day, while commenting on whether the Chief Justice of India should be covered by the judicial inquiry Bill now before Parliament, Mr Justice K. G Balakrishnan, the CJI-designate, said he would not mind if his actions were scrutinised, however adding, "in a system we must repose some confidence in the posts of Prime Minister and Chief Justice". The clear inference here is that, in a `system' which passes muster, the top people should be beyond reproach in every sense of the word, setting an example for society in general to follow. What this in turn means is that, in such a situation, there would be no need for the Prime Minister or the Chief Justice of India to be brought under the ambit of any statutory accountability authority.

The important question here is whether the present `system' is beyond reproach; whether it will be able to pass muster when judged against the exacting standards set by the Founding Fathers of the republic. If the answer is yes, it follows that the arguments favouring the exclusion of the system-heads being left out of the purview of any statutory investigation authority are impregnable. But if the system itself is (to use an inordinately strong word) rotting, the strength of the arguments adduced for exclusivity weakens. The issue then becomes debatable, with the point of view advocating application of the cleansing-sieve to the highest personages of the land gaining appreciable strength.

Fall in standards

The central point then becomes whether the `system' of governance in the Indian republic has deteriorated in its various aspects over the years, and, secondly, if it has, whether that deterioration has also affected its leaders? In a sense, the second part of the above line of investigation is redundant in Indian conditions because, given the Constitutional framework, the `system' (including its leaders) springs from the people, and if there has been a lowering of standards generally then the leaders are affected as well.

The question, namely, whether the `system' has become more corrupt over time, is a tricky one to answer because of, among other things, the vested-interest factor. And what exactly does `corruption' mean? Does it always involve filthy lucre changing hands to get something done or are there other considerations affecting decision-making (in all branches of governance) which do not answer to the description of being fair and neutral? Whatever the nuances, and taking a broad view of corruption, it is apparent from the statements being periodically made by the system-heads themselves that there has been an all-round deterioration in standards.

The corrupt system

The Prime Minister has reiterated the point a number of times that corruption has raised its head in the portals of governance and that extra efforts must be made to check it. In a recent interview, the CJI-designate has talked about what he would like to do "to weed out the corrupt from among the judiciary". Instances of corruption among legislators have also been highlighted in recent years, indicating that this pillar of the republic too has been infected by the cancer. Even the armed forces have not been left alone. In view of all this, it is hardly surprising that the common response to the sight of an official vehicle with a red beacon these days is principally one of disgust compared to the awe and respect which occupants of such vehicles used to elicit generally in the past.

If all this leads to the view that the system is now suspect, should its leaders be left out of the purview of statutory accountability mechanisms?

Ranabir Ray Choudhury

More Stories on : Courts/Legal Issues | View Point

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Moving closer to Japan

Stagnation amid growth

Is there hope for farmers?

Fog and the air traffic chaos

A `system' going downhill

Home-truths from PM at ISB

Market failure versus bureaucratic failure

Pocket

Economy overheating?