BY SENDING the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, seeking removal of Prime Minister, Chief Ministers and Ministers arrested on serious criminal charges for 30 days, to the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) the Central Government has done well to quell a storm till the next session of Parliament. The uproar caused by the Bill and two related Bills in the Lok Sabha by the Opposition parties has exposed their reluctance to approve decriminalisation of politics and also given the Centre at least three more months to come back with a new strategy to pass a welcome reform to keep out tainted leaders from critical decision-making.

 

The Bills propose that if any minister, including Chief Ministers and the Prime Minister, is arrested and remains in custody for 30 straight days for an offence punishable by five years or more in jail, he or she must resign or lose their office. It was introduced by Home Minister Mr. Amit Shah as an anti-corruption measure after instances of some leaders enjoying decision-making powers despite facing a trial and even while serving prison sentences. Former Delhi Chief Minister Mr. Arvind Kejriwal was the latest example of misuse of powers vested by the Constitution into an elected public representative. Mr. Kejriwal continued to serve as Chief Minister of Delhi even while being in the custody in the Delhi excise policy case. In the past too, many ministers continued to hold their portfolios despite being convicted by the court of law. The Opposition leaders are up in arms against the amendment calling the Bill as being against the jurisprudence of criminal justice and Parliamentary democracy.

 

Their grouse is about the clause to remove a PM, CMs, Ministers on mere framing of charges and custody before conviction by the courts. They see it as a tool to destabilise governments as the ruling dispensation might resort to its political misuse. Yet, the fact remains that the law is applicable to every leader facing criminal charges irrespective of the party or the dispensation he/she represents. Moreover, their removal is not sought merely on suspicion of wrongdoing but only after detention or arrest in custody for 30 consecutive days for offences that attract a jail term of at least five years. It clearly means that the Bill seeks removal of only those who are accused of a serious crime which cannot be heaped on an individual merely on suspicion. Such action takes place only after a systematic investigation by the agencies who collect enough material to arrest an accused, for, they have to prove the charges in the court of law with matching evidence. The Opposition uproar on an anti-corruption measure, therefore, sends a wrong message to the electorate who cannot tolerate their elected representative calling shots from jail.

 

The country has always sought a mechanism to uproot political corruption and safeguard constitutional morality. In many cases where leaders face criminal charges for a long period there is no accountability towards the people who elect them in a free and fair election process. It is nothing but misuse of a constitutional shield provided to the political class by the Representation of the People Act as they avoid disqualification because of the stretched judicial process. Allowing a people’s representative to run a Government from jail is actually subversion of people’s rights. Seeking removal of such leaders by amending the Constitution is actually the calling of morality.

 

Agreed, the tool must not be weaponised to target political rivals but then it is the responsibility of the judiciary, too, to fast-track cases if there is a suspicion of a political witch-hunt. A separate mechanism to expedite cases related to the Executive can be found out by the JPC in the time it has to go through the proposed amendment. It will easily rule out misuse of a much-needed reform seeking decriminalisation of politics.