Opinion Always a work in progress

A faster pace of life has indeed resulted in an increased annoyance with things that don’t work,the “rotten politician” and the “system” in general are derided even more,and now several levels of injustice are sought to be “wiped out” in one Tahrir-like event. But the anxiety to seek correctives for things that are wrong with Indian democracy should not prompt us to argue about going down the revolutionary road. If anything,the protests in Tahrir Square should alert us to things that we take for granted — the right to vote,to change regimes,to seek redress for grievances in a system that at least recognises the equality of its citizens and grants space for their protests.

The one thing that people in dictator-led countries are screaming out for is a system which has institutions that go beyond a particular person or a family. Those famed “checks and balances” of institutions expand the definition of democracy beyond the majority-rules principle and make it a space where one cannot get away with things that are patently wrong.

Consider the Supreme Court judgment on P.J. Thomas’s status as Central Vigilance Commissioner. In a trenchant order,the court quashed the appointment of the chief of the highest anti-corruption body in the country,not allowing the government to get away with whatever excuse there may be — arrogance,ignorance or the stealth of it all. The beauty is that while the case took time — long enough to allow the Centre to make its case and for the gentleman appointed to defend himself — in the end it made a clear distinction between taking a call on the bureaucrat’s culpability in the palmolein case and the propriety of appointing a person with a chargesheet against him as the head of the anti-corruption watchdog.

It has become unfashionable to be patient about letting systems work themselves out. While there is a case to speed up processes,on the whole,few agencies are allowed to run amok and undermine democracy. From laying down the “basic structure” of the Constitution,the courts have provided stability for the Indian state despite the temptation of successive political heads who may not have thought twice about making reckless appointments of yes-men,changing rules or riding rough-shod over minority interests. The courts took up cases concerning elected leaders — Indira Gandhi in the 1970s, Jayalalithaa in the 1990s,Narendra Modi in the 2000s,as and when they were seen as violating aspects of the Constitution — and enforced larger principles that ultimately make India. The legislature and the executive have hit back,of course,the latest being the example of Parliament opposing the anti-reservation line taken by the SC in 2005 and going on to amend the Constitution to ensure that reservations for OBCs were possible. But by and large,by being vigilant,the courts have deepened democracy beyond popular mandates,and lent the system the all-important balance. We saw this just recently in the order and scrutiny the courts have brought to the 2G investigation — so much so that the CBI had to take A. Raja in custody,never mind his political clout.

The screws are tightening on the elected to get their house in order. Therefore,it seems this is the right time to ensure that attention is also turned to other elements to fully restore the “balance” between various organs of the system.

Last week,charges were framed against a high court judge the day she demitted office in a cash-at-door scam in Chandigarh. In the PF scam in Ghaziabad,six retired judges are expected to appear in the SC on March 14,failing which warrants could be issued against them. A chief justice of a high court has been castigated for land-grab and sent off to another high court,for punishment or protection,depending on your point of view. Another judge faces impeachment proceedings for money paid in bribes and the conduct of a former chief justice is a matter of intense debate.

The only way available to check corruption among those who judge others is impeachment. Ironically,that has not worked even once. In 1993,the Congress’s vote made the impeachment of the only judge to be tried by Parliament,Justice V. Ramaswami,impossible. There have been no real attempts to rein in corruption other than the recent chargesheets against judges. The debate on the appointment and removal of judges is an ongoing one. A 1993 SC judgment pretty much laid down the guidelines for appointing judges. Any attempt to alter them has met with the Lordships’ resistance and unease. A lot of it is healthy scepticism about the executive trying to seize control of the judiciary. But a lot of it also comes from the desire to retain control.

The judiciary has done an admirable job in bringing the elected to book. But till the same zeal and light is turned inwards and it is subjected to the same high standards of accountability and probity,the balance in the system will be less than optimum.

A whiff of fresh air,if not Jasmine,may well be in order to just restore the balance between the several poles that constitute the Indian experiment.