The idea of accountability

One of the most important signs that a country is maturing as a democracy, which should mean not merely the right to periodically elect your rulers but also to hold them and their class accountable, is the movement towards genuine equality before the law, so that a person's status while he is being tried for a crime is irrelevant. The Constitution guarantees this in theory, but thanks to centuries of social and political practice, this had been largely observed only in the breach. But the last few days have shown that even here""as in economic and social matters""India is making a transition towards proper justice. Thus, a Delhi trial court has handed down the death penalty to a police officer who had tortured to death two men in custody. A minister's son has been held guilty of murdering a barmaid after having been let off by a lower court. And a police officer's son has been held guilty of raping and killing a young girl after the court found that the police had mucked about with the evidence.

It can, of course, be argued that these are still exceptions, not the rule. It is far from certain, for instance, that the police will stop using third degree methods as their standard tool for questioning; indeed, it is safe to assume that no such dramatic change will take place. All that might happen is that they will become more careful, or at best more selective. Nevertheless, it is reassuring that some things are moving in the right direction. The problem in India has always been that a person's status depended on whether or not he or she served the state. Those in service of the state""especially policeman, as that wonderful play by Vijay Tendulkar, Ghasiram Kotwal portrayed""have always felt themselves to be beyond the law. Indeed, not just them but their families, too, have thought so. Even the British, who ushered in their liberal ideas in the 19th century, baulked when it came to their own kind. For example, it was proposed in 1883 that senior Indian magistrates should be allowed to try cases involving British subjects in India. The whites protested vehemently and when the Bill was finally passed, it had been hugely diluted.

This Hamurabian idea, enshrined in the later Manusmriti as well, that status matters when it comes to justice is coming under question in other ways as well. Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that no government permission was required for prosecuting public servants for criminal acts, including corruption. Even more welcome is the fact that this will apply to all public servants, including MPs, chief ministers and prime ministers. The Court said that while the immunity contained in Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 197 of the Criminal Penal Code applied to normal duties, it would be absurd to apply these provisions to corruption and criminal acts. Two things make this ruling memorable. The petitions which were dismissed were filed by Lalu Prasad, his wife Rabri Devi, Parkash Singh Badal and his son Sukhbir, and Rajinder Kaur Bhattal, deputy chief minister of Punjab. In a separate case, a former chief minister of Kerala, K Karunakaran, was involved. It is worth noting en passant that MPs have started talking about "interventions by the judiciary" and the Speaker, Somnath Chatterjee, a Communist, agreed to allow a discussion.