SOURCE -
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Abandon-rule-of-law-and-pay-the-price/articleshow/7536532.cms
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh rallied in defence of his scam-scarred government and said, "Wherever I go, people marvel that there is a country like India, a country of a billion people, a functioning democracy, committed to the rule of law, committed to respect for all fundamental human freedoms and yet managing to grow at the rate of 8-9% per annum."
But constant media glare on corruption has deeply anguished an honest PM. He promised to bring the guilty to book and advised the media to exercise restraint. "In projecting these events, an impression has gone round that we are a scam-driven country and that nothing good is happening in our country," he said.
The discernible issues in his interaction with electronic media editors were commitment to rule of law and a sense of shame over the scams that forced action against those who were part of his team or close to the establishment.
The present situation in which the PM finds himself in would not have been precipitated had the government held rule of law to be sacrosanct, applicable to all with equal vigour and acted ruthlessly against those breaching it.
A story about an old woman living in a small yet rich village will not be out of place here. A young visitor to the house was surprised to find the old woman's husband engaged with friends in a game of gambling, right in the morning. The visitor asked the lady, "Isn't it bad to gamble?" The woman said, "Oh! Surely, it is very bad. No one should indulge in it as it brings ruin." Surprised even more, the visitor asked, "Then why don't you tell him not to gamble?" Giving a wicked smile, the lady drew the visitor inside while saying, "I want to. But you know, the old man always wins the bets."
If the PM tells people that there is a coalition dharma which sometimes obfuscates rule of law in the course of governance, then despite his personal honesty, people will be compelled to point fingers and he will always feel the pain.
When sanctity of rule of law gets compromised by vested interests, like coalition dharma, then, it loses its purity and makes the government's intention suspect.
A normally resilient common man is ever ready to battle out the most calamitous situations if he finds there is fairness in governance where rule of law applies to everyone in equal rigour. What has hit his resilience in the last two decades is the unending stream of scams polluting every conceivable sector.
From fodder to sugar, from stock markets to arms purchases, from power plants to fertiliser imports, from laying roads to mining minerals, from housing sector to onions and vegetables, from bureaucracy to judiciary, from stamp papers to palmolein, the poisonous effect of scams has enveloped everything, costing the nation, according to one estimate, Rs 80 lakh crore since 1992.
The country minimised the impact of global recessionary trend and showed a healthy growth. But does this mean rule of law can be winked at. The importance of rule of law was lucidly explained by Justice S H Kapadia in his concurrent judgment in 2005 in a case where the YSR Reddy government advised the Andhra Pradesh governor to pardon a murder convict because he was a good Congressman.
Justice Kapadia had said, "Consideration of religion, caste or political loyalty is irrelevant and fraught with discrimination. These are prohibited grounds. Rule of law is the basis for evaluation of all decisions." So, coalition dharma or any other consideration could not have made the PM go by the bald assurances of a minister belonging to an assertive southern ally who attempted to pull wool over everyone's eyes. The minister had made the PM shed his suspicion by promising to follow rules, but went on to distribute a national asset like spectrum at very subsidised rates to chosen corporate as if it were his family property.
If only the PM had stepped in before the Supreme Court to stem the rot, he would not have been seen explaining his government's commitment to rule of law and assuring to bring the guilty to book.
Explaining the sanctity of rule of law, Justice Kapadia had said, "The supreme quality of rule of law is fairness and legal certainty. The principle of legality occupies a central plan in rule of law. That rule cannot be compromised on the grounds of political expediency."
But constant media glare on corruption has deeply anguished an honest PM. He promised to bring the guilty to book and advised the media to exercise restraint. "In projecting these events, an impression has gone round that we are a scam-driven country and that nothing good is happening in our country," he said.
The discernible issues in his interaction with electronic media editors were commitment to rule of law and a sense of shame over the scams that forced action against those who were part of his team or close to the establishment.
The present situation in which the PM finds himself in would not have been precipitated had the government held rule of law to be sacrosanct, applicable to all with equal vigour and acted ruthlessly against those breaching it.
A story about an old woman living in a small yet rich village will not be out of place here. A young visitor to the house was surprised to find the old woman's husband engaged with friends in a game of gambling, right in the morning. The visitor asked the lady, "Isn't it bad to gamble?" The woman said, "Oh! Surely, it is very bad. No one should indulge in it as it brings ruin." Surprised even more, the visitor asked, "Then why don't you tell him not to gamble?" Giving a wicked smile, the lady drew the visitor inside while saying, "I want to. But you know, the old man always wins the bets."
If the PM tells people that there is a coalition dharma which sometimes obfuscates rule of law in the course of governance, then despite his personal honesty, people will be compelled to point fingers and he will always feel the pain.
When sanctity of rule of law gets compromised by vested interests, like coalition dharma, then, it loses its purity and makes the government's intention suspect.
A normally resilient common man is ever ready to battle out the most calamitous situations if he finds there is fairness in governance where rule of law applies to everyone in equal rigour. What has hit his resilience in the last two decades is the unending stream of scams polluting every conceivable sector.
From fodder to sugar, from stock markets to arms purchases, from power plants to fertiliser imports, from laying roads to mining minerals, from housing sector to onions and vegetables, from bureaucracy to judiciary, from stamp papers to palmolein, the poisonous effect of scams has enveloped everything, costing the nation, according to one estimate, Rs 80 lakh crore since 1992.
The country minimised the impact of global recessionary trend and showed a healthy growth. But does this mean rule of law can be winked at. The importance of rule of law was lucidly explained by Justice S H Kapadia in his concurrent judgment in 2005 in a case where the YSR Reddy government advised the Andhra Pradesh governor to pardon a murder convict because he was a good Congressman.
Justice Kapadia had said, "Consideration of religion, caste or political loyalty is irrelevant and fraught with discrimination. These are prohibited grounds. Rule of law is the basis for evaluation of all decisions." So, coalition dharma or any other consideration could not have made the PM go by the bald assurances of a minister belonging to an assertive southern ally who attempted to pull wool over everyone's eyes. The minister had made the PM shed his suspicion by promising to follow rules, but went on to distribute a national asset like spectrum at very subsidised rates to chosen corporate as if it were his family property.
If only the PM had stepped in before the Supreme Court to stem the rot, he would not have been seen explaining his government's commitment to rule of law and assuring to bring the guilty to book.
Explaining the sanctity of rule of law, Justice Kapadia had said, "The supreme quality of rule of law is fairness and legal certainty. The principle of legality occupies a central plan in rule of law. That rule cannot be compromised on the grounds of political expediency."
