Author:
Publication: Outlook
Date: June 13, 2011
URL: http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?272112
Introduction: There are a few who think including
the PM under Lokpal would lead to chaos
Not everyone is convinced that the PM should
come under the purview of the Lokpal Bill. For instance, former Supreme Court
chief justice J.S. Verma, who gave the permission to prosecute former prime
minister Narasimha Rao, has expressed his reservations on the inclusion of
the PM and the judiciary in the bill.
He feels the only way to get rid of the prime
minister in a parliamentary democracy "is through the political process.
The Constitution does not provide for President's rule at the Centre. And
an inquiry will take time and create instability in the country, which is
not in the larger public interest". Verma seems to have come a long way
from the time he headed the bench that passed the judgement in the Jain hawala
case that paved the way for the Central Vigilance Commission getting statutory
status.
Officials in the prime minister's office hold
similar views. In a finely calibrated position, they say that the issue has
spun out of control. "We trust the PM with our security, nuclear command
and control; his judgement in war and peace; the financial health of the country,
and yet have doubts about his integrity," says a senior PMO official.
Governance, he argues, is a "precarious balance between authority and
anarchy". And the Lokpal Bill and the heat it has generated, the official
feels, amounts to anarchy. Adds another official: "The government needs
authority to establish order. But by exposing the PM, who is the chief executive,
we are prescribing anarchy and instability. Is that desirable?"
These officials also feel that the current
structure for combating corruption adequately covers the PM. "As things
stand," one of them notes, "the CBI or even the income-tax department
can investigate the PM. So why should we have a single behemoth with such
unfettered powers investigating the PM as well?"
So what happens in a case like the 2G scam
where the PM did raise issues about the controversial first-come-first-served
policy with disgraced telecom minister A. Raja in UPA-I? But then he gave
him a cabinet berth in UPA's second avatar following the 2009 general elections.
Would these actions make the PM culpable of criminal neglect? Would they merit
an investigation? While a majority from the civil society feel that the PM
should be accountable in such a case, many in government feel that the PM
can't be held responsible. "Governance in India is a complex issue. To
hobble the PM on every case would bring governance to a grinding halt. Do
we want such a situation?" asks a PMO official.
The last word goes to activist lawyer Prashant
Bhushan. "During Bofors," he says, "a case was registered and
the PM was being investigated. Did it stop him? On the contrary, the nation
went to war in Sri Lanka and the PM continued to take key decisions on a variety
of issues. So I don't buy these arguments. We need accountability at the highest
echelons of government to combat corruption effectively."
