Protection to criminals in elective bodies: a Raj Dharma

KEEPING one step ahead to protect criminals in the field of democracy and elective bodies when India is now known for the maternal home of corruption government is bent upon to get signature of the President of India on the Ordinance so as to criminal may also representative elective bodies every attempt is being made though public as such is against it. Every political party has his skeletons of corruption and corrupt leaders in its cupboard. All political parties want protection against the judgments of the Judiciary so that it is only criminals who would represent the elective bodies. Why this rule may not be equally applied to government and private employees as of right?

The reality is that the way in which Indian democracy has been nurtured  and fostered since independent shows that whether of old or new generation have no respect for real democracy and for Indian culture, character civilization and social reforms but each one is running to secure some post in politics to grab money. The concern is about young generation which may surpass the old generation in the field of corruption. Like father like son.

The provision of Art. 123 of the Constitution of India run as under: 

123. Power of President to promulgate Ordinances during recess of Parliament

(1) If at any time, except when both Houses of Parliament are in session, the President is satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to take immediate action, he may promulgate such Ordinance as the circumstances appear to him to require

(2) An Ordinance promulgated under this article shall have the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament, but every such Ordinance

(a) shall be laid before both House of Parliament and shall cease to operate at the expiration of six weeks from the reassemble of Parliament, or, if before the expiration of that period resolutions disapproving it are passed by both Houses, upon the passing of the second of those resolutions; and

(b) may be withdrawn at any time by the President Explanation Where the Houses of Parliament are summoned to reassemble on different dates, the period of six weeks shall be reckoned from the later of those dates for the purposes of this clause

(3) If and so far as an Ordinance under this article makes any provision which Parliament would not under this Constitution be competent to enact, it shall be void.

The words ‘circumstances exist’ are of wide import. There must be circumstance which makes quite necessary/inevitable that the ordinance should be issued without which government cannot run and function in right perspective. The power to issue ordinance is an emergency power and used in extra ordinary times only. Food security ordinance is one of the examples. Though there was no need for ordinance as the Bill was pending in the Lok Sabha but to gain political mileage Congress got issued the same and the president of India did not question why and also did not give second thought to it. ”

What is important to note is that the debates in the Constituent Assembly, the wording of the Constitution and Supreme Court judgments are Cleary lay down the ways and means to use such power and be sure it is not the way a school boy purchases toffee from the school exist door.   The Chief Justice P N Bhagwati, heading a Constitution Bench in D C Wadhwa vs State of Bihar (1987 AIR 579=1987 SCR (1) 798) it was held that The power to promulgate an Ordinance is essentially a power to be used to meet an extraordinary situation and it cannot be allowed to be ‘perverted to serve political ends’. It is contrary to all democratic norms that the Executive should have the power to make a law. The word ordinary has also been explained with reference to law which means a general provision contained in any law and must be read   subject to the special provisions contained in the law. Extra ordinary means highly exceptional, very unusual situation, not in an established manner. Except politicians no one sees any exceptional circumstance that compailed the Union government to attempt for an ordinance. The ostensible purpose in getting the ordinance issued was to oblige and protect Rashid Massod a double edged Congress Rajaya Sabha Member and Muslim and Lalu Yadav an opportunist who supported Congress though his support was never sought by UPA-Congress government in UPA II. These cases were reserved for judgment by the courts trying the offences. Government wanted that ordinance should have come in to force before their judgments were pronounced. To protect their membership.  Such law is called Colourable Legislation which is meant to be applied to a particular person/s or circumstances. This was also done when election of Indira Gandhi was declared void and Representation of peoples Act was amended to save her from disqualification.

The question is do criminals indispensable in politics? One can understand cases that a politician might be facing trial and judgment is not pronounced because the police in India has not at all earn faith in investigation and there is continuous interference by the government with investigating agencies as also was done in the case of Lalu where the then Prime Minister Indra Kumar Gujral had pressurized the then CBI Director to drop proceedings, again Lalu, Mayavati and Mulayam for whom present government is soft and very tough for Modi and other BJP leaders. But once the judgment of conviction is pronounced there should be no protection to such leaders or politicians. In India concocting cases is very-very easy like breathing. It is learnt that the ordinance is to be taken back. 

If all things remain the same as are presently be sure in future the elective bodies in India will be fully packed with criminals of heinous offences and ordinary citizen may find place in jail. Let us wait for the day!

Thanks

P.V.Namjoshi

Advocate, Indore-Ujjain

108, Dashahara Maidan

Ujjain, M.P.456010