On first consideration, Dr Manmohan Singh's admission of 'full responsibility' for the appointment of Mr P.J. Thomas as Central Vigilance Commissioner marks him out as an honourable man, a lone member of the almost extinct breed of ruling elites willing to abide by some sort of moral code.

It is only human to make mistakes but close to saintliness to admit, in these amoral times to having made such an ?error of judgment?; appointing an official tainted with scandals to keep an eye on scandals in public life can appear foolish or arrogant or both but then, the Prime Minster no less has confessed.

Yet the admission does not recognise any wrongdoing or mis-governance and to that extent it is an arrogant dismissal of an indictment not by the Opposition or media, both of which could be accused of ?bias? but by the Supreme Court no less.

Forced contrition

That is why Dr Singh's confession does not entitle him to the high ground he seeks for his Government; the admission of an ?error? (which would have had fatal consequences on the authenticity of any investigation into corruption in public life by the office of the CVC) does not come out of an act of good Government followed by contrition; it has been forced out by the Supreme Court.

In the Lok Sabha it came after the leader of the Opposition insisted upon it after the suo motu statement that was even more watered down.

But the moral claim is most inauthentic because the confession comes after the most arrogant exhibition of defiance against the evidence already established against Mr Thomas and more dangerously against the Prime Minister and the Home Minister, Mr P. Chidambaram, to the effect that they had knowledge of the tainted official while considering him for the CVC's office.

It is immaterial what political exigencies drove them to even consider Mr Thomas for the office of CVC; it is enough that they stuck by his appointment both denying the evidence, questioning the authority of the judiciary in executive decisions.

What could have been more arrogant than the Prime Minister's openly hostile advice to lawmakers at the 17th Commonwealth Law Conference last month at Hyderabad to remember the ?non-negotiable premise of the constitutional scheme?? that sanctifies the ?diffusion of sovereign power??

Hubris rules

The entire CVC episode appears all the more squalid precisely because it involves not just Cabinet members or bureaucrats but the highest policymaker in the land and when that policymaker openly warns the highest court to mind its own business and refuses to get the tainted official to step down, what else can an Indian think other than that hubristic power not morality resides in the Capital?

In other more complex times, Dr Singh's advice to the lawmakers gathered in Hyderabad not to let the power of judicial review ?erode the legitimate role assigned to other branches of government? would have sounded like the start of a debate necessary for the constant adjustments by various branches of government common to democracies.

Governance failure

The Thomas affair straddled both the judiciary and the executive as cases of corruption and sleaze must; it called for a resolution by one or the other.

What Dr Singh's Government failed in was not just the act of asking Mr Thomas to exit; it failed in the kind of governance that would not have let him become CVC in the first place.

So Dr Singh's claim of ?full responsibility? does not reflect the exercise of morality but the acceptance of a verdict.

Related Topics