Voter must know criminal tendencies of a minister

Our Supreme Court has recently said that the right to know a candidate’s criminal antecedents is part of a voter’s fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression in our Constitution. The law now requires a candidate to disclose on affidavit information about his previous conviction and accusation of a criminal offence etc.Logically, the right to this information should, therefore, also extend to knowing the criminal tendencies of a projected Chief Minster or of a Minister appointed by the political opponent and who is the leading campaigner of that party, and that is what the Judeo tape has done.

The CBI has been entrusted with the case. Prima facie if the video is authentic it discloses offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A fortnight has elapsed since the case was handed over to the CBI and until the day of the election, the CBI has not completed its investigation and made a final report whereupon an FIR could have been filed.

Had it done so before the election, the authencity of the information disclosed by the video could not have been doubted. On the other hand, if the authenticity of the video tape was disproved, Judeo or his party could have said that it was a damn dirty trick by his opponents and take proceedings for defamation. This is probably the first time in any part of the world in which a sting operation has been utilised during election time.

The ethics of an entrapment to convict a suspect has sometimes been a matter of doubt. Many years ago, one of our finest judges, Justice Vivian Bose condemned even an entrapment by police officers stating ‘‘whatever the criminal tendencies of a man, he has a right to expect that he will not be deliberately tempted beyond the powers of his frail endurance and provoked into breaking the law’’. This is, of course, not to suggest that politicians in India have frail endurances but only to be cautious of such operations as a matter of proof of guilt.

The US Supreme Court has said that even when Government enforcement agencies initiate a sting operation they must not overstep the line that separates a trap for the unwary criminal and create an operation which sets a trap.

All these doubts would have been dispelled if the CBI had acted promptly and completed its investigation before the electorate went to the polls. As things stand today the electorate of Chattisgarh have been left to form their own conclusions from the Judeo video.

(TR Andhyarujina is a senior advocate of the Supreme Court and former Solicitor-General of India. He was the man who got Jayalalithaa’s cases shifted out of TN)