DO all chargesheets merit resignations? The sacking of Buta Singh from the Union Cabinet on April 19 after he was chargesheeted in the JMM bribery case has sparked off intense speculation about the stand of the BJP-led government vis-avis AIADMK leader J. Jayalalitha's 'demands'. But it has also thrown open a larger debate, triggered off by the former communications minister himself.
A bristling Singh accused the Vajpayee government of adopting double-standards in dropping him, while ruling out action against L.K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharati—among the 49 persons accused in the Babri Masjid demolition case—whom the CBI has chargesheeted and a sessions court had summoned for framing of charges. (Later the BJP-VHP-Shiv Sena leaders, in response, filed an appeal in the Allahabad high court which is still pending and the sessions court is, therefore, yet to frame charges.)
The BJP spin doctors were quick to articulate arguments that the charges were 'political' in nature and could not be clubbed with Singh's. Says Supreme Court advocate Arun Jaitley, who is a member of the BJP national council: "The substance of the offence should be the determining factor. For instance, thousands of leaders have been charged in political agitations, landlord-tenancy disputes and matrimonial cases but there has never been a demand for their resignation. There is a need to balance the question of probity in public life against the element of political vindictiveness. Only charges like theft, rape, corruption, FERA and smuggling have a direct bearing on probity in public life. It is leaders charged with these offences who need to resign."
But Singh is not convinced. "Regardless of definition, the point is that charges are charges. They too should have been asked to go," he asserts. Most legal experts find merit in his argument. Says former Supreme Court judge Kuldeep Singh: "The government is trying to create two categories of chargesheeted ministers—those charged with corruption and those charged with other crimes." He hopes that "pressure will be built to ensure that anyone chargesheeted will be debarred".
Senior Supreme Court Advocate Kapil Sibal concurs. "Political parties must have a yardstick for appointing people which should be made public. If you want to appoint a chargesheeted person, go ahead. If you don't want them, then don't appoint them. But you must be consistent," he told Outlook.
Legally, one can continue in office till convicted. Under section 8A of the Representation of the People Act, the convicted person ceases to be an MP and, naturally, a member of the Cabinet. "But ethics and convention demand that till cleared of charges, you should stay away from public office," says Supreme Court lawyer Harish Salve. "It depends on how high we want to set our standards."
Disagreeing with the argument that the cases against the three BJP ministers are political in nature, Salve feels that "as Union home minister, Advani is supposed to enforce the law. And the man who is supposed to be protecting minority rights and all places of worship is an accused in the Babri Masjid demolition!"
One of the senior-most lawyers in the country who has been a highly respected president of the Supreme Court Bar Association told Outlook he was against these BJP leaders holding on to their ministerships. "A person should not hold any public office whereby he can control his own prosecution or interfere with investigation, as in the council of ministers, where subordinate officers will not be able to prosecute without fear," he said. Others put forth a different point of view. Says senior advocate Rajeev Dhawan: "There are various stages starting from the filing of an FIR to conviction. It is at the stage of framing of charges that the judicial mind applies itself and decides whether there is a prima facie case. It now becomes a trial issue. It is at this stage we have to decide where to draw the line so that public confidence is respected."
However, if the accused in the Babri Masjid demolition case are convicted, they would automatically invite the clauses of disqualification under Section 8A of the RPA because the convictions will come under section 153B of the Indian Penal Code—promoting enmity on basis of religion, race, place of birth, language, etc.
While agreeing that political morality demands that a chargesheeted person "should go", former law minister Shanti Bhushan points out: "The case in which Advani, Joshi and Uma Bharati are charged is a part of political agitation. And whether or not a person is dropped from the cabinet does depend on the nature of offence. Can anyone be dropped for a traffic offence?" But these arguments may not be enough to ward off criticism against the BJP ministers. "Advani, Joshi and Uma Bharati may be fine people. But conventions and the law cannot be bent for individuals. Where will it all end?" asks Salve. The danger, say experts, is that if you start making exceptions, where do you stop?
Tags