National

Let His Prime Ministership Prevail

There are a few who think including the PM under Lokpal would lead to chaos

Advertisement

Let His Prime Ministership Prevail
info_icon

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.

Advertisement

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?”

Advertisement

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.”

Tags

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement