A national party like the BJP with self-proclaimed credentials of high standards of political ethics and morality and claims of Nation First was expected to relieve their Chief Minister Manohar Parrikar. Now, with the reply of the Chief Secretary invoking the right to privacy of Chief Minister (no issue if chronically ill person was not public men) and submitting on oath that the Chief Minister is conducting regular cabinet meetings, briefings with bureaucrats and attending to official work from a hospital bed, it is clear that the diplomas of nationalism, good governance and clean politics that BJP is credited with are fake. It is also obvious that the MLAs justifying their support to this puppetry are ignoramus. Inwardly, they expect the judiciary to apply the corrective, though constitutionally the strings are with the elected representatives. It is the utter ignorance of the MLAs that is inviting this impudence from the BJP.
Under the Civil Service Rules, it is provided that “when there is reason to believe that a government servant is suffering from a contagious disease or a physical or mental disability which interferes with the efficient discharge of duties, the authority may direct the government servant to undergo a medical examination and call for the health report”. The Chief Minister does not come under the Civil Services Rules. However, being a public servant and the pivotal arch of the cabinet, the tenor has to apply as the office is vested with wide powers, responsibilities and accountability.
There is every reason to believe that the current incumbent to the office of the Chief Minister is not just ill but suffering from incapacity to independently perform the duties entrusted to the office. The remedial authority for the general public to demand the medical and status of health report of their Chief Minister could only be the Court when the cabinet colleagues, MLAs and Governor having failed in their responsibilities and maintaining silence purely for political reasons. The Governor and all the instrumentalities of the government have demonstrated through their conduct that the media cannot shake them from their slumber so long as the opposition cannot muster the magical arithmetic of 21 to move a motion of no-confidence against a headless government. No weight of public pressure can tilt the scales for the Governor and the BJP leadership to restore some semblance of democracy and constitutional ethics. They are loud and clear that for retaining power, they can be ruthless, reckless, remorseless and shameless.
The Speaker of the Goa Assembly is all the time wearing the shoes of minister throwing the dignity of the exalted office to the winds. The Ministers in the so-termed Parrikar cabinet are parading in oversized shoes with each one pounding the other. The Chief Minister is without his boots. They are pledged with the IAS coterie cum BJP national President. The MLAs have put their shoes on the shoe-rack groping in the dark with no sign of light at the end of the tunnel.
How do you stop an ill person from sitting down sine die at the controls as the head of the government administration or a nuclear power plant or army or the Supreme Court? Even if the issue is of respecting the fundamental right to privacy of individual, there has to be a harmonious balance between the right to privacy and the right of people to be protected from suffering due to collapse of public administration. In the matter of illness of the Chief Minister of Goa, it is also the disintegration of collective responsibility which is the sine qua non of parliamentary democracy. Since, the cabinet ministers, MLAs and the Governor have abdicated their constitutional responsibility, it is for the judiciary to rescue people and democracy to restore this balance as required for public good without intruding into the right to privacy. That way, no right is absolute and without restrictions. The right of the individual occupying the topmost public office cannot be allowed to trample on the rights, privileges and well-being of the entire populace.
Legally, having the capacity to think, reason and understand for oneself is considered in general to be in sound mind. It is assumed that every adult is of sound mind. However, there could be circumstances which can render as being not in sound mind due to some major incapacity. Sound mind is considered a legal requirement before writing or signing documents.
It is in this context that the public have right to know the health status of their public men charged with performing public duties for public welfare.
The right to privacy of public men cannot be equated to that of an exclusively private individual. If public men priority is to guard their privacy at all costs, they need to shed the trousers and boots of public offices. Let us wait and watch for the judicial surgery on this right to privacy. No right that way is absolute and unrestricted.
