New Delhi:
The Supreme Court today has recommended that any complaint that asks for the prosecution of a public servant be decided by the relevant authority in the government within a period of four months. The ruling asks Parliament to consider making this a rule in dealing with corruption cases. The judgement is based on a petition by Janata Party President Subramanian Swamy who was kept waiting for nearly 16 months by the Prime Minister's Office when he asked for former minister A Raja to be tried for corruption.
The two judges in their verdict used strong language to criticise those who advised the Prime Minister on the issue. Dr Manmohan Singh, they said "is not expected to personally look into the minute details of every case placed before him and has to depend on his advisers and other officers."
These are some important parts of the judgement:
1. On corruption: Today, corruption in our country not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance, it also threatens the very foundation of Indian democracy and the Rule of Law. The magnitude of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist, secular democratic republic. It cannot be disputed that where corruption begins all rights end. Corruption devalues human rights, chokes development and undermines justice, liberty, equality, fraternity which are the core values in our preambular vision.
2. The duty of the Court is that any anti-corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption.
3. Learned Attorney General in the course of his submission fairly admitted before us that out of total 319 requests for sanction, in respect of 126 of such requests, sanction is awaited. Therefore, in more than 1/3rd cases of request for prosecution in corruption cases against public servants, sanctions have not been accorded. The aforesaid scenario raises very important constitutional issues as well as some questions relating to interpretation of such sanctioning provision and also the role that an independent judiciary has to play in maintaining rule of law and common man's faith in the justice delivering system.
4. Delay in granting such sanction has spoilt many valid prosecution and is adversely viewed in public mind that in the name of considering a prayer for sanction, a protection is given to a
corrupt public official as a quid pro quo for services rendered by the public official in the
past or may be in the future and the sanctioning authority and the corrupt officials were or are partners in the same misdeeds.
5. On the Prime Minister: The concerned officers in the PMO kept the matter pending and then took the shelter of the fact that the CBI had registered the case and the investigation was pending. In our view, the officers in the PMO and the Ministry of Law and Justice, were duty bound to apprise respondent No.1 (the PM) about seriousness of allegations made by the appellant (Swamy)....By the very nature of the office held by him, respondent No. 1 (PM) is not expected to personally look into the minute details of each and every case placed before him and has to depend on his advisers and other officers. Unfortunately, those who were expected to give proper advice to respondent No. 1 (the PM) and place full facts and legal position before him failed to do so. We have no doubt that if respondent No.1 (the PM) had been apprised of the true factual and legal position regarding the representation made by the appellant (Swamy), he would have surely taken appropriate decision and would not have allowed the matter to linger for a period of more than one year.
The two judges in their verdict used strong language to criticise those who advised the Prime Minister on the issue. Dr Manmohan Singh, they said "is not expected to personally look into the minute details of every case placed before him and has to depend on his advisers and other officers."
These are some important parts of the judgement:
1. On corruption: Today, corruption in our country not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance, it also threatens the very foundation of Indian democracy and the Rule of Law. The magnitude of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist, secular democratic republic. It cannot be disputed that where corruption begins all rights end. Corruption devalues human rights, chokes development and undermines justice, liberty, equality, fraternity which are the core values in our preambular vision.
2. The duty of the Court is that any anti-corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption.
3. Learned Attorney General in the course of his submission fairly admitted before us that out of total 319 requests for sanction, in respect of 126 of such requests, sanction is awaited. Therefore, in more than 1/3rd cases of request for prosecution in corruption cases against public servants, sanctions have not been accorded. The aforesaid scenario raises very important constitutional issues as well as some questions relating to interpretation of such sanctioning provision and also the role that an independent judiciary has to play in maintaining rule of law and common man's faith in the justice delivering system.
4. Delay in granting such sanction has spoilt many valid prosecution and is adversely viewed in public mind that in the name of considering a prayer for sanction, a protection is given to a
corrupt public official as a quid pro quo for services rendered by the public official in the
past or may be in the future and the sanctioning authority and the corrupt officials were or are partners in the same misdeeds.
5. On the Prime Minister: The concerned officers in the PMO kept the matter pending and then took the shelter of the fact that the CBI had registered the case and the investigation was pending. In our view, the officers in the PMO and the Ministry of Law and Justice, were duty bound to apprise respondent No.1 (the PM) about seriousness of allegations made by the appellant (Swamy)....By the very nature of the office held by him, respondent No. 1 (PM) is not expected to personally look into the minute details of each and every case placed before him and has to depend on his advisers and other officers. Unfortunately, those who were expected to give proper advice to respondent No. 1 (the PM) and place full facts and legal position before him failed to do so. We have no doubt that if respondent No.1 (the PM) had been apprised of the true factual and legal position regarding the representation made by the appellant (Swamy), he would have surely taken appropriate decision and would not have allowed the matter to linger for a period of more than one year.
Track Latest News Live on NDTV.com and get news updates from India and around the world
