There are many similarities in controversies surrounding Shashi Tharoor and P.D.Dinakaran. Both persons have allegedly betrayed the trust reposed in them, one as a minister and the other as a judge. Both stubbornly claim they are innocent. Perhaps they are; probably they are not. In piquant situations like these where the public perception is totally at odds with the personal claims, a quick solution by way of removal of people from positions of power is a dire necessity. This is mandated by demands of good governance.
Indian politics enlivened and energised by democracy has met this requirement in the case of Tharoor. No doubt the whole drama was played out while the parliament was in session and therefore it was politically inevitable for the prime minister to cut losses and oust the minister when Tharoor's deviation from norms was egregious. It also helped that Tharoor is a political light weight and is incapable of raising a revolt. Similar shenanigans by ministers with stronger power-base escape punishment for reasons of expediency. But atleast in some cases sleazy contretemps in the political space are resolved.
This unfortunately is not the case in judiciary. Removal (sometimes, even transfer) of an allegedly deviant judge is a constitutionally structured impossibility. A High Court or a Supreme Court judge can be removed only through the self-dissolving process of legislative impeachment. A judge facing the impeachment proceedings has only to dig in his heels and refuse to proceed on leave. The process creates more embarrassment for the Supreme Court and the Law Minister than for the impugned judge. The judge has only to relax and watch the tamasha.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment