What loyalty costs

H.R. Bharadwajs tenure has seen him swing from one scandal to another. But his ill-fated role in advising that presidents rule be implemented in Bihar in 2005 is small change compared to the controversial de-freezing of Quattrocchis London bank account in 2006 despite express instructions from the Supreme Court to the contrary. The law minister blamed the CBI,but his own dubious role led this newspaper to ask that he join the exit Q. True to form,three years later,Bharadwaj is involved in giving Mr Q yet another free pass. And this time too,he has defended

his signature on the red corner removal file by blaming,guess who,the CBI!

At least the law minister is a member of the cabinet and of Parliament,and can offer that as an excuse for playing partisan politics. Milon Banerji has no such cover. The attorney general is a constitutional appointee. His job is to give independent legal advice,not cover up for the government. Yet,as this newspaper pointed out,in 2004 he ensured that the CBI did not appeal against a high court order quashing all charges in the Bofors case. He then used this decision not to appeal to justify removing an Interpol red corner notice against Mr Q a circuitous justification if there ever was one. The governments number one lawyer has compounded his pliancy with ineptitude. In the last five years,hes made few appearances in court,forcing the government to rely on its other lawyers. This begs the very same question that the law minister can be asked what,then,are they there for? The answer,alas,seems to be fidelity,that sister of the law.