The Quattrocchi Coup

Ottavio Quattrocchi is a genius for evading the law. In a case regarding his prosecution for non-appearance before a magistrate the Delhi High Court decided against him. Quattrocchi preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court. During the hearing of his appeal he agreed through his counsel to come to India and cooperate with the CBI investigation provided he was given proper treatment and facilities, to which the CBI agreed. On the next date of hearing he backed out and did not appear. The Supreme Court ‘‘strongly disapproved of his conduct’’. Quattrocchi had found refuge in Kuala Lumpur. A red alert was issued and the Malaysian authorities were considering India’s request for his extradition. A Single Judge declined India’s request in a highly questionable judgment delivered on a Friday. Before an appeal could be filed on Monday and a stay obtained preventing Quattrocchi’s departure, he fled from the country on Saturday.

Quattrocchi’s bank accounts containing about 4 million Euros were frozen by the Magistrate’s Court in London. His appeal to the High Court in London and his further appeal were rejected. The freezing orders were passed on the basis of evidence which prima facie established Quattrocchi’s connection with receipt of illicit monies from Bofors. These orders were obtained after a protracted legal battle by the CBI. It appears that Additional Solicitor General B Datta was sent to London to inform the British authorities that there was no case against Quattrocchi. It is amazing that a law officer should be deputed for this purpose. What is more intriguing is that CBI officials, the investigating agency, were not permitted to accompany Datta. To cap it all, the Law Minister has publicly stated that there is no evidence against Quattrocchi. The sole purpose is clearly to secure defreezing of Quattrocchi’s bank accounts. This is indefensible executive interference with the independent functioning of investigative agencies, in defiance of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Vineet Narain case. It is significant that Quattrocchi continues to be an accused and the director of the CBI has stated that the agency intends to pursue his extradition and prosecution. It is scandalous that our fair-minded Prime Minister was kept in the dark about these developments.

It is distressing that the process of bringing a criminal to justice is sought to be thwarted with the assistance of the Law Minister and a junior law officer. They may well be handsomely rewarded for their outstanding services to a fugitive from justice whose close proximity to Sonia Gandhi and her family is well known.

Sexual Revolution

Story continues below this ad

Our age has witnessed many sweeping changes but none so radical as the recent sexual revolution. Homosexuality which at one time in Christian countries was considered an abominable crime is no longer criminalised today in western countries. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that penalising homosexual conduct between consenting adults is violative of their right to privacy. The US Supreme Court in Lawrence vs Texas reversed its previous decision and held that the Texas statute which criminalised sexual acts between individuals of the same sex violated their right to make choices about their intimate sexual conduct and thus was unconstitutional. The traditional definition of adultery, namely voluntary sex between a spouse and a person of the opposite gender, was turned on its head by a judge of British Columbia Supreme Court who held that a wife was entitled to a divorce if her husband engaged in an adulterous affair with another man.

It is incredible that the country which sent Oscar Wilde to prison for his homosexual activities has legalised gay marriages. Oscar was born at a wrong time and in the wrong age. Elton John who celebrated his gay marriage with gusto is more fortunate. Section 377 still disfigures our Penal Code. It is not suggested that it should be abolished altogether. However homosexual conduct between consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be penalised. The Supreme Court will shortly be considering the constitutionality of Section 377.