February 21, 2012
Anna Hazare’s movement may have floundered and Baba Ramdev’s campaign may have temporarily run out of steam, but the Supreme Court has ensured through three recent judgements that the long arm of the law catches up with scamsters and citizens retain their faith in the rule of law. These judgements of the court dealing with the legality of the 2G licences, the locus standi of citizens to prosecute corrupt Ministers and the empowerment of the Central Vigilance Commissioner have done much to pep up the sagging morale of the citizenry.
The most spectacular of these three cases is the one filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation, Subramanian Swamy and several other public-spirited citizens versus the Union Government and others in regard to the allotment of 2G licences. In a historic judgement, Justice GS Singhvi and Justice AK Ganguly cancelled the 122 licences granted by the Government and even imposed fines on several of the companies. While doing so, they saluted non-Government organisations and citizens who had approached the court.
The judges said, “But for the vigilance of some enlightened citizens and non-Government organisations who have been constantly fighting for clean governance and accountability of the constitutional institutions, unsuspecting citizens and the nation would never have known how the scarce natural resource spared by Army has been grabbed by those who enjoy money power and who have been able to manipulate the system.”
In Subramanian Swamy versus Manmohan Singh and Another, Mr Swamy asserted his right to prosecute a Minister and drew the court’s attention to the non-response of the Prime Minister to his request for sanction to prosecute A Raja, the former Union Minister for Telecomminication, in regard to the 2G Spectrum scam. The issue before the court was whether a citizen could file a complaint to prosecute a public servant for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and whether the competent authority is required to take an appropriate decision within a specified time. The other question was about thelocus standi of a citizen to lodge such a complaint for prosecution.
Here again, a Bench comprising Justice Singhvi and Justice Ganguly upheld Mr Swamy’s contention. The court rejected the Attorney-General’s argument and said there was no bar on a citizen to file a complaint to prosecute a public servant, either in the Prevention of Corruption Act or in the Criminal Procedure Code. It said a similar argument (like that advanced by the Attorney-General) had been negated by a Constitution Bench of the court in the Antulay case.
The Bench dealing with the Antulay case had held, “Punishment of the offender in the interest of the society being one of the objects behind penal statutes enacted for larger good of the society, right to initiate proceedings cannot be whittled down, circumscribed or fettered by putting it into a straitjacket formula of locus standi unknown to criminal jurisprudence, save and except specific statutory exception. To hold that such an exception exists that a private complaint for offences of corruption committed by public servant is not maintainable.”
The court also cited the judgement of a three-judge Bench in the Vineet Narain case which had settled the issue of a citizen’s locus standi and also stipulated a time limit for the competent authority to take a decision. In that case, the court had said that any deviation from the path of rectitude by holders of public office “amounts to a breach of trust and must be severely dealt with …”. If the conduct amounts to an offence, “it must be promptly investigated and the offender against whom a prima facie case is made out should be prosecuted expeditiously”.
Finally, the court laid down a time limit of three months for grant of sanction for prosecution and said this “must be strictly adhered to”. However, additional time of one month may be allowed where “consultation is required with the Attorney-General or any other law officer in the AG’s office.” The judges held that “in view of this judgment of the Constitution Bench, Mr Swamy had the right to file a complaint for prosecution of Raja”.
The story, however, does not end here because all this revolved around the conduct of the Prime Minister and the response of the Prime Minister’s Office. Though the Supreme Court has said that a decision must be taken within four months, this was not acted upon by the PMO. The Supreme Court said the High Court, which had rejected Mr Swamy’s plea, had proceeded “under a wholly erroneous assumption” that the Prime Minister had directed investigation by the CBI into the allegations.
Actually, following a representation on May 4, 2009, the Central Vigilance Commissioner got an inquiry conducted and forwarded a copy of the report to the Director, CBI. Thereupon, the CBI registered an FIR. For about a year after this, “the matter remained dormant and the CBI took steps for vigorous investigation only when this court intervened in the matter.” The court said material placed on record does not show that the CBI had registered a case or started investigation at the instance of the Prime Minister. Mr Swamy had submitted his representation to the Prime Minister almost a year before the registration of the FIR by the CBI which continuously followed it up.
While agreeing with Justice Singhvi, Justice Ganguly said it was the duty of the court to interpret law “in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption”. The judge said by delaying sanction of prosecution of the corrupt, the sanctioning authority “stultifies judicial scrutiny” and thus “the legitimacy of judicial institutions is eroded”. Therefore, he directed that henceforth if a petitioner did not hear from the sanctioning authority within the stipulated time, it should be presumed that sanction had been granted.
In the third and final case, the court directed that in future, copies of the reports of the investigation conducted by the CBI and other agencies shall be made available to the Central Vigilance Commissioner in sealed envelopes and within one week the Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Senior Vigilance Commissioner shall examine the reports and send their observations/suggestions to the court in sealed envelopes.
Needless to say, these judgements have done wonders to rejuvenate public morale and the peoples’ faith in rule of law.
0 comments:
Post a Comment