The classic image of crime is that of a constable with a lathi chasing a small-time thief. That picture has changed. The current spectacle is the Supreme Court pursuing Union cabinet ministers and chief ministers up to the prison gates.
Some prey gets away with a milder rap. Courts merely overturn their shady decisions with lengthy admonitions. The embarrassment lasts only a few days as the censure is stacked away in the law journals.
The 150-page indictment of the former Maharashtra Chief Minister, Manohar Joshi, his minister for urban development and other top executives by the Supreme Court last week was lost in the din of Karnataka ex-chief minister being trundled off to jail, hospitals and back, while a ruling chief minister was answering a list of 1,339 questions posed by a special court on such things as her diamonds and fancy footwear.
The Maharashtra case, Manohar Joshi vs State of Maharashtra, was about land allotment as in most of the scams unearthed in recent months. A prime plot in Pune city was earlier reserved for a garden or playground and then for a primary school. But when Joshi took over as chief minister, the municipal corporation changed the plan at his instance and gave the land for the construction of residential buildings. The developer was none other than the chief minister’s son-in-law. On these grounds, a public interest petition was moved in the Bombay High Court. It ordered the government to initiate a criminal investigation against the chief minister, the minister for urban development and the municipal commissioner. It also ordered the demolition of the structure.
Joshi and others appealed to the Supreme Court, but it affirmed the finding of the high court with even more force. “This is a case,” said one of the passages in the judgment, “where the personal relationship of the developer with the chief minister was apparently used to obtain permission for construction without following the process of law... It was clearly a case of showing favouritism by going out of the way and circumventing the law...It is nothing short of fraud on one’s power and also on the statute.” The illegal order was signed by the then chief minister himself, the judgment underlined. The Supreme Court, therefore, upheld the high court order to demolish the disputed buildings.
The municipal authorities cannot plead that they acted according to instructions from above. It is their duty to act according to law and to protect the public’s interest. “Now,” lamented the court, “unfortunately we have a situation where the senior officers are changing their position looking to the way the wind is blowing.”
It cited an earlier judgment in which another chief minister of Maharashtra (Shivajirao Patil, 1987) was indicted for tampering with the mark sheets of the M D examination to benefit his daughter. “This court cannot be oblivious that there has been a steady decline of public standards or morals. It is necessary to cleanse public life in this country.” Things have only got worse since that remark.
Earlier this year, the former chief minister of Madhya Pradesh, Uma Bharti, bore the brunt of judicial displeasure for bestowing land for a favoured organisation (Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress vs State of MP). The judgment read: “The distribution of largesse by the state and its agencies should always be done in a fair and equitable manner and the element of favouritism or nepotism shall not influence the exercise of discretion, if any, conferred upon the particular functionary or officer of the state.”
The role of civil servants, acting obviously on directions from above, was highlighted in the recent judgment in Noida Entrepreneurs Association vs Noida. The master plan for the new city was changed to benefit certain people. The court referred the questionable aspects to the CBI to find out the culprits.
Earlier, Union Ministers Kamal Nath and Satish Sharma have also been probed by the Supreme Court for various violations of norms to benefit themselves or their favourites. Such cases of fish rotting from the head are increasing in recent times.
How can such malfeasance, nonfeasance and other forms of abuse of power be prevented in future? The Manohar Joshi judgment makes an inchoate, three-point attempt. When the plan is modified, it should be published in two prominent local newspapers. The public inquiry provided in the law should give opportunity to everyone to raise objections and offer suggestions. If there is paucity of funds for projects envisaged for public benefit, citizens should be called upon to contribute as the plan profits them. Many philanthropists or corporate bodies might show interest. Such are the well-meaning suggestions from the court. However, there are evil forces more powerful than philanthropy and obedience to rule of law. That’s the rub.
