Well done, but govt has more to answer

Two recent cases, one at the central  and another at the state level, of governments’ treatment  of senior officials facing serious charges have sent out different and contradictory  signals. The sacking of Union home secretary Anil Goswami, who was reported to have influenced the CBI investigation into the Saradha scam, has been well received. The home ministry and the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) acted promptly after it became known that the official tried to stall the questioning and prevent the arrest of a former Union minister, Matang Sinh, who was being investigated. But a day before that a report said that a special court in Mumbai let off a former police chief of Gujarat, P C Pande, who also faced the charge of delaying the investigation of a serious crime, because the state government did not give its sanction to prosecute him. This case also involved the CBI, and the agency had charged the top police official of delaying the investigation into the fake encounter cases of two persons Sohrabuddin Sheikh and his aide Tulsiram Prajapathi. This was a case of a government shielding an official who faced charges relating to murder. 

The contrast in the treatment of the two officials is especially glaring because both the governments – one which punished the home secretary and the other which shielded the former police chief – belong to the same party. The Tulsiram Prajapathi case goes back to the time when Prime Minister Narendra Modi was the chief minister of Gujarat. Pande was also considered a favourite of the administration. That is why the difference in the treatment of the two officials who faced similar charges of obstruction of investigation – the charge against Pande is in fact more serious – becomes an obvious case of double standards.

The action against the home secretary is commendable but such
actions should not be selective. The impression should not grow that some officials can get away with their lapses and crimes while others may be proceeded against for their wrong actions. There are other takeaways also from the Anil Goswami episode. One is that the unholy nexus between officials and politicians is very strong. Otherwise Goswami would not have tried to protect a politician who was a minister at the Centre in the nineties. Another is that a senior official thought he could interfere in the CBI’s investigation, even after all that has been done to make the agency independent. Both messages are not good. Governments should also not create the impression that action against erring officials will depend on their usefulness to and links with politicians.