<p>The Supreme Court’s judgment on Tuesday in an appeal filed by Subramanian Swamy in the 2G case further empowers citizens in the fight against corruption.<br /><br /></p>.<p> It is also an indictment of the UPA government which failed in its handling of the charges against former telecom minister A Raja. The court has made it clear that the blame for this specifically rests with the prime minister’s office which sat for 18 months on Swamy’s request for sanction to prosecute Raja. The original request for prosecution is infructuous now as Raja resigned and has since been arrested. But the judgment is important for the expansion of citizen’s rights and the guidelines it sets for sanctioning of prosecution of public servants. <br /><br />Making a request for prosecution of a public servant a constitutional right would make it easier in future to proceed against errant officials. It would also make it difficult for authorities to delay and obstruct such requests on flimsy reasons or for no reason. The court has said that the sanction should come within four months of the request and if it doesn’t, it will be considered that the sanction has been granted. The government’s argument that complainants have to approach a lower court for sanction has also been rejected.<br /><br />The court’s observations on the handling of Swamy’s request has exposed the PMO. It had referred the request to various ministries, including ironically Raja’s own ministry, looking for excuses not to act on it. The court has spared the prime minister of guilt but only in a legal sense. The moral and political responsibility for the failure of his office rests with the prime minister. The court’s view that the prime minister would have taken action if he had been apprised correctly of the position is only kind conjecture. The fact is that he did not pursue the matter though the charges against Raja were in the public realm for a long time and he was well aware of them. He had later even tried to defend the lack of government action on the argument of coalition compulsions.<br /><br />The judgment advances the right of people to make public servants accountable for their actions, which had been stymied by the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the CrPC relating to prior sanction for prosecution. It will have a bearing on a number of other cases and should put the fear of law into the minds of public servants. </p>
<p>The Supreme Court’s judgment on Tuesday in an appeal filed by Subramanian Swamy in the 2G case further empowers citizens in the fight against corruption.<br /><br /></p>.<p> It is also an indictment of the UPA government which failed in its handling of the charges against former telecom minister A Raja. The court has made it clear that the blame for this specifically rests with the prime minister’s office which sat for 18 months on Swamy’s request for sanction to prosecute Raja. The original request for prosecution is infructuous now as Raja resigned and has since been arrested. But the judgment is important for the expansion of citizen’s rights and the guidelines it sets for sanctioning of prosecution of public servants. <br /><br />Making a request for prosecution of a public servant a constitutional right would make it easier in future to proceed against errant officials. It would also make it difficult for authorities to delay and obstruct such requests on flimsy reasons or for no reason. The court has said that the sanction should come within four months of the request and if it doesn’t, it will be considered that the sanction has been granted. The government’s argument that complainants have to approach a lower court for sanction has also been rejected.<br /><br />The court’s observations on the handling of Swamy’s request has exposed the PMO. It had referred the request to various ministries, including ironically Raja’s own ministry, looking for excuses not to act on it. The court has spared the prime minister of guilt but only in a legal sense. The moral and political responsibility for the failure of his office rests with the prime minister. The court’s view that the prime minister would have taken action if he had been apprised correctly of the position is only kind conjecture. The fact is that he did not pursue the matter though the charges against Raja were in the public realm for a long time and he was well aware of them. He had later even tried to defend the lack of government action on the argument of coalition compulsions.<br /><br />The judgment advances the right of people to make public servants accountable for their actions, which had been stymied by the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the CrPC relating to prior sanction for prosecution. It will have a bearing on a number of other cases and should put the fear of law into the minds of public servants. </p>
