To each its own

The Supreme Court was correct in dismissing a petition challenging the prime minister’s decision to include so called tainted ministers in the UPA government. It rightly refused to tread on a matter that is within the domain of the legislature. Although the court has recorded an assurance that Parliament will debate the matter at first opportunity, it is unlikely that Parliament will be able to satisfactorily resolve this issue soon. It will not be easy to frame rules that do justice to the competing considerations at stake. Almost every issue is contested. What should the definition be of tainted? Is it not a contravention of parliamentary principle to suggest that someone can be eligible to be an MP but not a minister? Who exactly thinks it is wrong for tainted ministers to be included? Mantriji may be a rogue, but he gets elected. Can the democratic mandate be so easily discounted against a possible moral taint? Is the justice system credible enough that a taint can be taken at face value? These questions are not going to be resolved by legal means or by formulation of rules. They belong squarely within the domain of politics, not law.

At the level of political morality, the issue is relatively straightforward. Each political party can unilaterally frame rules that govern its own selection of ministers, if it so desires. The immediate fortunes of most parties are closely tied to so called tainted ministers. Therefore it is unlikely that all parties will actually agree to a common set of precepts on this matter. That is why the home minister’s call for an all party meet on this issue, when the UPA government took power, was a little disingenuous. If parties think including tainted ministers is wrong, they can simply act on that belief. If they don’t think it is wrong, the call for all party consensus seems beside the point. In a context where it is unlikely that an all party consensus can be evolved on this issue, waiting for such a consensus is a way of avoiding doing the right thing.

Parliament should now debate this matter. But it should be aware of two things. First, all parties will have to agree that this issue should be debated but not allowed to impede the functioning of Parliament. Second, parties should debate the matter knowing fully well that it is always open to them to uphold political morality — consensus or laws or the courts notwithstanding.