Opinion - Leader Page Articles   

Time to dismantle the immunity regime

Harish Khare

The Supreme Court has begun the process of bringing the political leader on a par with the citizen.

ON THURSDAY, the Supreme Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister and his family members to explain their income and investments over the last five years. The court directive came in a public interest litigation case. While the court has reserved the option of examining the bona fides of the petitioner, it has directed the income tax authorities to continue with their proceedings against Uttar Pradesh's most important political family. This is not the first time that a Chief Minister has been suspected of having assets disproportionate to known sources of income. The former Chief Ministers of Haryana (Om Prakash Chautala), Punjab (Parkash Singh Badal), and Uttar Pradesh (Mayawati) are some prominent leaders facing similar allegations. What is new in Mulayam Singh Yadav's case is that the apex court has been invoked directly to let the income tax authorities do their job. Ten years ago, a PIL by a BJP legislator became the basis of the long-drawn out "fodder case." That process has now been given a new — and sharper — dimension.

The Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister has predictably attributed all these unhelpful directives to the Congress' unfriendly designs. He sees this as a case of political vendetta and a misuse of the Centre's coercive powers. This, too, is commonplace. However, Mr. Yadav has raised an interesting point. He has asked why only his family was being singled out while nobody was asking question of "others" who send their sons and daughters abroad for education.

It must be presumed that Mr. Yadav's lawyers would be able to respond satisfactorily to the apex court's queries and doubts. It may also be possible to argue that the court has once again overreached itself by expanding the scope of its original jurisdiction. There may even be sympathy for Mr. Yadav for all the mental agony he and his family members have been put to. But in his plight one can see the beginning of a much larger and much-needed step towards dismantling the immunity regime that the political class has built for itself over the years. All the devices — including the much abused Prevention of Corruption Act or the election time disclosure of assets by a candidate — have failed to slow down the political class' capacity and innovativeness for self-aggrandisement. The use of the taxman as an instrument of inquiry cannot stop with Mr. Yadav. What is sauce for Mr. Yadav and his family has to be sauce for other political families, sooner or later. And it is about time.

Ever since our polity graduated into the "coalition is inevitable" age, it has become virtually impossible for any Prime Minister to read the riot act to a Cabinet colleague engaged in unethical practices. The incumbent Prime Minister is no exception to this coalition-induced paralysis. The much-touted "coalition dharma" has in practice come to mean that Cabinet Ministers are left pretty much to their own devices and to their own definitions of ethical conduct. Nor can the Centre allow the law to take its course, lest this or that important regional ally (or potential ally) in a State should get offended. Regional parties need not even be part of a ruling coalition at the Centre to earn impunity from the Centre's scrutiny; a precariously perched ruling party is always willing to mollycoddle the tiniest of political outfits. Who knows when this outfit's two Lok Sabha members or that outfit's sole member will come in handy?

The coalition matrix has only deepened an already existing infirmity in our polity. The political class proceeds on the assumption of immunity from the law's scrutiny. It has also perfected the art of shouting "vendetta" if at all an odd taxman or an idealist policeman gathers the courage to do his job. A few months ago, the Samajwadi Party leadership sought to make an issue of the fact that its supporter, Amitabh Bachchan, got an income tax notice while he was in hospital. The principle of immunity was sought to be invoked not only for the political leadership but also for its prominent supporters.

There may or may not be some merit in the Samajwadi Party leadership's contention that the Congress was being vindictive. However, the highest judicial forum's intervention ought to be welcomed not only by civil society but also by the political class. If the political class is incapable of self-correction it should not grudge some other institution doing the job. No thinking leadership can be unmindful of the vast erosion in the political class' reputation and acceptability. This withering away of its credibility can directly be traced to the immunity from law political leaders are seen to enjoy. This erosion has, in fact, become so palpable that it is a pronounced handicap in the purposeful working of our democratic institutions.

Take for instance two recent developments that revealed civil society's disdain for the political leadership. First, the office of profit controversy. The country witnessed for itself how political leaders collectivised in Parliament were prepared to tinker with the law to entrench themselves in positions of privilege. Those who protested in New Delhi were quite happy to practise the same legislative sleight of hand in the States they ruled. This was seen as a cynical class act, with no pretensions to furthering any kind of "public good."

Second, the reservation muddle. While one does not have to endorse the anti-reservation crowd's protests and pretensions, there is no denying the fact that the vast — and critical — segments of our population are no longer willing to accept the political leaders' word or claims or assurances. "The politician" is no longer given the benefit of doubt that he or she will do the "right" thing. This depletion of the citizen's faith in the political leader's claim that he is the most sincere guardian of the public interest can undermine the very edifice of democratic governance.

A democratic polity operates on the assumption that those who work its institutions do so in the interests of society and that they stand above the temptations of sectional interests and personal gains. The Indian state could acquire its legitimacy in the early years of post-Independence only because the political leadership consisted of those who were seen to have made sacrifices in the cause of national liberation. The Mahatma was the icon of this selfless, dedicated, committed political biradari, with a single-minded pursuit of our collective emancipation. It was the credibility and reputation of post-Independence leaders that helped republican values and democratic institutions gain traction. This leadership could dismantle the feudal and princely order because it could legitimately claim to speak in the name of the Indian masses. The same credentials helped the political leadership occasionally to tame big business. The Indian state drew its legitimacy from the simple fact that the masses believed in their leaders.

This faith was gradually betrayed. By the 1990s, the political class could no longer be deemed to have the capacity or credibility to undertake the unfinished task of ushering in an egalitarian social order. Influential sections of society turned to the market and private enterprise. The state was asked to share space with the market. This battle for space is becoming more and more favourable to the market because the political class has lost its reputation of being dedicated to the public good.

The idea of democratic functioning assumes that the public official is committed unreservedly to the idea of welfare for all; but the "public" is no longer willing to concede this claim, mostly on account of the immunities and privileges claimed by political leaders. What has deepened this crisis of faith is the leaders' insistence on disregarding any demand of accountability as inspired either by social prejudices or party calculations.

The Supreme Court's directive to the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister to comply with the income tax authorities' requests punctures the politician's penumbra of immunity. Maybe this will open a can of worms, with unintended destabilising consequences. It is possible that the Samajwadi Party might instigate similar public interest litigation against political leaders of other parties, and the judiciary will be even-handed.

The larger interests of the democratic polity will be served if public officials are seen to be well within the reach of the law. The Supreme Court has begun the process of bringing the political leader on a par with the citizen. This is a moment to celebrate.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Poor response to child malnutrition
Thailand must clear the mess
Time to dismantle the immunity regime
Health Ministry, MCI in a standoff
Corrections and clarifications
Anger as an emotional disorder
Jacking up prices
Deep malaise

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu