Opinion Higher bar

Kerala Finance Minister KM Mani

With a vigilance court rejecting its plea to close the case against the state finance minister, K.M. Mani, the bar bribery scandal has returned to haunt the Congress-led government in Kerala. There was sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case against the minister, the court said, who was accused of taking a bribe from a bar owners’ body. The state vigilance chief, who had overruled the findings of the investigating officer and decided not to chargesheet Mani, has resigned from his post after the court’s rap. The minister, too, should step down from office till he is cleared in the case.

Probity in public life is a cherished value in Kerala and public representatives in the past have been compelled to resign from their posts following strictures from the courts. Chief Minister Oommen Chandy, however, has preferred to defend his tainted minister and, worse, claimed that the decision of a former ministerial colleague to resign in the face of corruption allegations was a mistake. Chandy’s position is driven by electoral compulsions, perhaps, keeping in mind the possible impact of the minister’s resignation on the impending local bodies’ election. Mani is the supreme leader of the Kerala Congress-M, an influential constituent of the Congress-led UDF and a decisive factor in central Kerala. However, elections are not just about numbers, and perceptions matter. The image of a tainted minister, however influential and experienced he may be, clinging to office can only damage the UDF’s electoral prospects. Increasingly, voters in India do not condone corruption as an inevitable evil of democracy. The Anna Hazare  movement played a transformative role in foregrounding corruption as a mainstream political issue and this played a major role in the defeat of UPA 2, which was plagued by corruption allegations, in the 2014 general elections. Instruments like the RTI Act and media scrutiny have empowered citizens, who now demand more transparency and accountability from their representatives.

Advertisement

Chandy and Mani have termed the court’s censure as “procedural” action that does not necessitate the minister’s resignation. This argument may be legally tenable but is unlikely to convince citizens. The tainted minister, who has had a long career in public life, is free to defend his record in government but he must do so without the protection of his ministerial office.