Tags:
Journalism of Courage
As long as the courts own processes are so imperfect,it cannot expect to impose order on democratic politics
After its verdict requiring all convicted legislators to resign,even if their appeal to a higher court is ongoing,the Supreme Court has gone a step further. Those in prison or police custody can no longer contest elections,it has laid down. It has argued that since such individuals cannot vote,they should also be barred from contesting elections. Unfortunately,there are no tidy lines separating the tainted and the blameless in politics,and a large part of the responsibility for that must be owned by the judiciary. Not all the criminals in politics are jailed or convicted,because their cases snake on in the courts if they have enough political influence. On the other side,not all the political leaders in jail or those convicted by lower courts are necessarily guilty,as more rigorous arguments in higher courts eventually prove,and given Indias record of keeping people in custody before they have been legally convicted.
Another internal practice the court must confront before it can declare legislators in jail unfit to contest elections is the increasingly rote and routine refusal to grant bail. Though courts speak of bail,not jail as a governing principle,in practice,bail is denied to the poor as well as the influential. Though the only reason to place an accused person in custody is to make sure they show up at the trial,and to prevent them from obstructing the investigation,in the case of the powerful and influential,denial of bail often touches off suspicions of morality theatre. All too often,instead of building a strong legal case and pressing for convictions,investigators and courts contribute to making the process the punishment. The overlong incarcerations of Kanimozhi or Jaganmohan Reddy should alert us to these pitfalls.
