 |
||
|
||
|
||
Author: Editorial
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: June 7, 2007
URL: http://www.indianexpress.com/story/32865.html
Introduction: Sanction for prosecution is an idea whose time has gone. UP provides the latest demonstration
Mayawati is undoubtedly elated over Uttar Pradesh Governor T.V. Rajeshwar's decision to stop the CBI in its tracks on the Taj corridor case. But that cannot be the case for those in this country anxious to actually see the law take its course, not just talk about it. If the governor's action, which goes expressly against the stated opinion of the Central Vigilance Commissioner and the exertions of the Central Bureau of Investigation, gets to be viewed through a patina of cynicism - already suggestions that it was prompted by a quid pro quo vis-a-vis the presidential elections are making the rounds - he, and his political masters, would have only themselves to blame.
The idea of sanction from an appropriate authority before prosecution may be a useful one, but only if it is strictly deployed for the purpose it is meant for: that is, protecting officials and political leaders from malicious charges. As far as the Taj corridor case is concerned, we have it on the authority of the CVC and the CBI that this is not the case. There is a constitutional principle at stake here as well. Article 14 protects equality before the law. If some alleged offenders are allowed to use their political influence and stave off prosecution, it would be contravening the letter and spirit of this article. It may also be useful to remember here the Supreme Court had found it fit to strike down the 'single directive' provision in the Jain Hawala case in 1997, which protected bureaucrats from prosecution without prior sanction of the government precisely because it found that it obstructed the course of justice. It is quite another matter that the executive, in its anxiety to control the process of investigation and prosecution, brought back this provision in the CVC Act of 2003. As we had commented in the context of Lok Pal bill, we can think of only one authority that merits different handling, and that is the prime minister.
As for the Rs 175-crore Taj corridor case, it raises serious and disturbing questions about probity and accountability in public life. The CVC has observed that Mayawati was directly involved in a project that had dangerous implications for the country's most valuable monument. The CBI had already done extensive work on the case and found senior bureaucrats in the UP government culpable. The executive's attempt to now put a spoke in the wheel of this process should certainly not be condoned. The law must take its course.
editor@expressindia.com
|
||
|
||
|
||