The Indian polity is governed by the
Rule of Law. As a democratic republic we the citizens of the country are bound
by the constitution. It is the paramount parchment. It delicately balances
powers. It guarantees equality. All are equal before the eye of law- only some
are more equal than the rest and their lies the twist to the tale.
The law books are replete with instances of the courts confirming punishment to
bus conductors and erring officials. Teachers and revenue officials, municipal
employees and excise officials are all suspended when they are charged of
various offences and more particularly if the offences relate to charges of
corruption. These miles stones , these navigators of functional constitutionalism
has taken a severe beating in contemporary India. The common man may not agree
with the approach of the harbingers of a clean India but would have to
grudgingly admit to the fact that the collective moral standards of India has
taken a beating – a severe beating at that.
The Indian constitution provides that the state functions under the cabinet of
minister and Article 163 specifically provides that there shall be a council of
ministers with the chief minister at the head to aid and advise the Governor.
Our constitution also specifically states: The Council of Ministers shall be
collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly of the state. The
constitution requires him to take an oath of office. It would be interesting to
read the oath of office that a Minister takes: He swears that he “will bear
true faith and allegiance to the constitution of India as by law established,”
also that he will “faithfully and conscientiously discharge “ his duties and do
right “ to all manner of people in accordance with the constitution and the law
without fear or favour affection or ill will (emphasis added)”
It is the case of the CBI that Dharmana Prasada Rao is an accused in the case
of illegal allotment of lands to Vanpic. The CBI as late as to days ago opposed
the petition for bail for Vanpic Prasad on the ground that his release could
lead to his influencing witnesses. How come the same does not apply to the
Minister? The latest reports on the resignation f the Minister is that the
Chief Minister is still sitting on it and that the Minister would in fact
attend the cabinet meeting. This issue raises questions of far greater import
than we would admit. It could leave scars on the credibility of a government.
It may signal singularly that there is a set of rules for the governed and
another for those who govern. This would mock at the guarantee of equality – an
admitted facet of the basic structure of our constitution.
Former Advocate General CV Mohan Reddy Former state advocate general CV Mohan
redder believes that the Minister ought to have resigned, once he has been
charge sheeted. There is a moral obligation that requires this of him. He adds
that the Chief Minister ought to have recommended the acceptance of his
resignation. He however says that the Governor cannot insist on he being
dropped from the Council of Ministers. He also was quick to point out that the
obligation to stay away from the council was more a moral than a legal
requirement. Agreeing with him is another Senior Counsel and former Additional
Advocate General D Prakash Reddy. He would further add that it would lead to a
conflict packed scenario with a Minister being charged of an offence on the one
hand and enjoying privileges from the state on the other. Prakash Reddy faults
the Chief Minister for not accepting the Minister’s resignation. He opines that
the Minister would also face a peculiar contradiction when he is required to
deal with members working under him on disciplinary issues.
G. Vidyasagar, President of the AP chapter of the All India Lawyers Union too
echoes with far more acidity the need for the Minister to leave. He says when a
government official at a far inferior rank in the hierarchy is disciplined with
a suspension “in public interest” how come the same does not apply to a
Minister. It is highly unacceptable for the State to have two different
yardsticks, he reasons, one for the employees and one for the Ministers. He
points out that another Minister in the cabinet continues even after being
punished for FERA violations. He says that in a case a judicial member was
suspended when his wife took on rent a premises owned by a person who is known
for his connections with an accused in a high profile murder case. “It is a
poor reflection on how powerful people can manipulate the system. What is the
reason for not accepting the resignation?” he asks. “Does the Chief Minister
absolve of the charge or does he want to create an impression that the Minister
is above the law? When a Taluk level officer is suspended for a ‘missing
pencil’ how come the Minister continues when charge sheeted by the CBI for an
offence that was investigated at the instance of the High Court? “ Vidyasagar
wonders.
Partly answering him and putting things in perspective is former Advocate
General and firebrand lawyer S. Ramachandra Rao. “The continuance of the
Minister is both unconstitutional and unethical. The system does not permit
dishonest people to be in power. They will tamper with democratic institutions
and would abuse their power” he says. Known for calling a spade a shovel he
faults the Chief Minister and says that he is hardly one and that he is at best
a de facto head who has given up his power of governing the state and acts only
at the behest of the High Command. Another reason he attributes for the Chief
Minister not accepting the resignation is that a majority of Ministers are
guilty of corrupt practices and they would all have to resign if honesty and
clear record are the tests.
There lies a tragedy. When the men who govern the system become unaccountable
credibility takes a beating. Who cares. Not Parthasarthy. Nor Dharmanna. You
may say, Anna it is Adharma but one man who does not want to hear it is
Dharmanna .
L. Ravichander.