Fools rush in…
Truly, fools rush in where angels fear to tread. In a clear attempt to overturn the Supreme Court’s recent ruling, the UPA II government has drafted and sent an ordinance to the President of India for his assent that shields a convicted legislator (MP/MLA/MLC) from immediate disqualification if his or her appeal against the conviction is admitted by a higher court within 90 days.
The unseemly haste shown by the Manmohan Singh government has drawn it flak from the Opposition and civil society groups, not to mention the common or garden variety of citizen, for both its intent and the method it is using to achieve what could easily be termed a “different set of rules” for the political class when compared to the rest of us. The government and its sympathizers claim that the ordinance is an attempt to uphold a “principle”.
So, what is the much vaunted “principle” the UPA II regime claims to want to uphold? Well, goes this argument of the government, in the name of cleaning up politics and de-criminalizing the ruling class, the apex court order will end up creating mayhem and unfairness because it places far too much trust in the subordinate judiciary and trial courts ~ and requiring convicted legislators to step down during the appeal period could have dramatic consequences as unsound or plain even plainly flimsy verdicts by lower courts could ruin political careers built over decades. Secondly, this line of argument carries on, in this era of coalition politics the unseating of an MLA or MP could impact stability of governments at the State and Central levels and this is a clear danger given the exponential rise in false cases and attempts to frame rivals.
Last but not least, the government reasoning is that given the tedious, slow and delay-ridden appeals process, legislators thus unseated may not be able to get back their positions (i.e. seats) as under the Representation of the People Act a vacancy has to be filled up within six months and the unseated legislator would not, if the Supreme Court order is allowed to be implemented, be eligible to stand for the by-election if he is convicted.
In essence, the UPA II’s argument is just so much sophistry based on the “innocent until proven guilty” principle. Because all the above arguments, and let us assume they are correct for a moment, apply to all other convicts too! Bureaucrats, lawyers, journalists, private sector professionals, public sector employees and, in fact, each and every citizen of India with the courage of his or her conviction faces the same challenges of false cases, an inefficient lower judiciary, convictions on flimsy grounds, a laborious appeals process et al. And they too are innocent until proven (finally) guilty! So, why should an exception be made for only the political class? Would anyone else apart from our so-called netas expect to retain their positions however unfairly they may feel they have been convicted? Where can the government locate public interest in such a stand when it comes to making an exception for their political brethren?
What’s even worse is what can only be called the duplicity of the powers-that-be in not disseminating the fact that the apex court order spoke of unseating only those legislators convicted in serious cases (murder, rape and other such heinous offences).
So much for the intent of the government. As for the timing of its ordinance, it is highly suspicious, to say the least. Lalu Prasad’s graft case verdict is due by the end of this week/early next week in the trial court and of the Congress-led UPA II’s supporting parties, Mulayam Singh Yadav’s infamous Samajwadi Party and Mamata Bannerji’s Trinamul Congress that have openly and for political gains been promoting a vile minority communalism in Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal respectively just as the BJP has been promoting a vicious majority communalism in Gujarat, are likely to be among the hardest hit if the Supreme Court verdict is left to stand.
The people of India must make up their mind on why this ordinance has been moved; we can only urge the President of the Republic to sign on the dotted line.
