There can be no doubt that
institutions are often characterised by the men who man it. Surely they do in
my limited sphere of experience, if not observance – the legal profession.
Two leading examples of how men in an office make a difference is visible. We
first (chronologically) have Justice Subhashan Reddy as Lok Ayukta and then
acting Chief Justice NV Ramana who in a short span have sent signals of their
priorities and the willingness to exercise statutory and constitutional power
respectively when called upon.
The seemingly docile post of the Lok Ayukta is all over the newspaper. The
energy of the septuagenarian is flattering. Days into the new office he has
energised what hitherto seemed yet another statutory body created to match some
international covenant of decent governance. Today the same office is vibrant.
Some do believe that there are instances where he has over stepped his
authority. Never mind. He is a contrast to a system suffering the vice of
inaction and indifference by systemic inertia. The latest is when he took up
the case of four patients and he ordered that they be given liver transplants.
While we could debate till the cows come home on the power of the Authority to
pass positive orders, it reflects how an individual can galvanise the system
with the heart at the right place. We may pause and debate the legal niceties
of authorities extending their statutory power. We may even debate how judges
go off the mark because they can say anything and get away with it because they
represent authority (follow the comments of Justice Singhvi from the Supreme
court for his rude comments on the Executive in the case of Butta Singh and in
the case of VIP cars and you would know what I am referring to) but what makes
the examples back home more acceptable is that they immediately are reacting to
the disorder in society.
The acting Chief Justice in the last few weeks has helped galvanise the system.
The media is filled with reports on how Executive action and erring officials
are up for strict scrutiny. He spares none and yet utters not an extra word.
Balance, they say is the hallmark of a good judge. Walk into the lofty premises
of the I Court Hall and see the difference. Lawyers feel free to voice their
grievance about the laxity of the Registry. He hears them, not necessarily
accepts them. He knows how the Registry functions under various pressures. Till
the other day he was a different proposition, even in this context. Today he is
the statesman who needs to do the balancing act and is doing it with panache.
To go beyond examples and to reiterate the crucial issue: men make the
difference. We know how Seshan altered the face of the Election Commission. We
lament that the office held by Radhakrishnan was also occupied by Pratibha
Patil!! While it is true that institutions and thereby its agencies outlive
individuals, some outstanding ones leave a lasting impression on the office
they occupy. Two recent examples only reiterate the theory that men who man
institutions are not greater than the institution but the manner of their
manning makes the difference.
L. Ravichander.