No different strokes for different folks

In what context does one place the Vasundhara Raje regime’s rather startling ordinance that seeks to immunise judicial officers and public servants from any kind of investigation of corruption charges? The six-month mandat

Published: 25th October 2017 04:00 AM  |   Last Updated: 25th October 2017 01:46 AM   |  A+A-

In what context does one place the Vasundhara Raje regime’s rather startling ordinance that seeks to immunise judicial officers and public servants from any kind of investigation of corruption charges? The six-month mandatory window for a sanction envisaged under the Criminal Laws (Rajasthan Amendment) Ordinance also prohibits any media coverage within that period. That this proposal strains directly against basic constitutional guarantees is obvious—as commentators have pointed out, such a blanket immunity would be ultra vires of both basic equality as conferred upon citizens by Article 14 and freedom of speech as granted under Article 19.

What brings about such a desire to escape accountability? Let us examine the rationale offered by the Raje regime—similar in tone and logic to the one extended by Rajiv Gandhi for his equally egregious (though abortive) attempt to frame an anti-defamation law in 1988. Some 73 per cent of complaints of corruption have been found to be baseless, apologists say.

This is perhaps essentially true but not as innocuous as it seems. Frivolous and/or malicious litigation or petitioning are a fact of our evolving legal universe. Some of these features have also infiltrated journalism. Indeed, one may wonder if agenda-driven investigations of scams have not even moulded the public discourse, often via journalists or bureaucrats cast in gladiatorial colours.

But a kind of pernicious blowback is to be observed from backward-looking members of the judiciary and elected legislature heads on a wide range of areas—from proposals to change the rape or divorce laws to attempts to dilute the RTI Act to attempts to gag free expression on matters of public interest.

Malicious interventions should be tackled—perhaps by increasing the cost borne by the accuser. Assume the Talwars are proven innocent in the Aarushi case—should they be entitled to compensation? But ultimately, truth will be its own defence in law. It’s good that Raje has seen the light belatedly after being panned universally.

Stay up to date on all the latest Editorials news with The New Indian Express App. Download now
(Get the news that matters from New Indian Express on WhatsApp. Click this link and hit 'Click to Subscribe'. Follow the instructions after that.)

Comments

Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the newindianexpress.com editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on newindianexpress.com are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of newindianexpress.com or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. newindianexpress.com reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp