Dileep Padgaonkar
Is an individual who holds a quasi-judicial position entitled to air his political views in public? On the face of it, that is the nub of the controversy that has pitted Justice Markandey Katju, chairman of the Press Council of India, against Arun Jaitley, leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha. Much like civil servants and officers of the armed forces and the police, government-appointed heads of statutory bodies are obliged to abide by the principle that they need to be discreet about matters that fall outside their remit. As citizens they are of course free to exercise their political preferences when they cast their ballot in a polling booth. But outside the booth, they must be seen to be impartial. Otherwise their conduct is bound to be suspect in the eyes of a section of opinion.
That principle has however often been observed in the breach. The former army chief, Gen. V.K. Singh, often spoke out of turn as does, Vinod Rai, the present CAG. The PCI chairman is thus no exception. This does not absolve him of transgressing the limits of his remit. He needs to seriously consider whether he can wear two hats: one as the head of a quasi-judicial body and the other as a citizen. What if there is a conflict of interest between those two roles? Assume, for instance, that he has strong pro-Maoist sympathies. Can he set aside these sympathies if he is called upon to deliberate on a case of Maoists intimidating journalists?
All of this, however, cannot explain, let alone justify, the BJP's intemperate attacks on Justice Katju. The gravamen of its charge is that he has been selectively targeting non-Congress governments in order to please those who gave him a post-retirement sinecure. The first part of the charge is factually incorrect for the PCI chairman has been critical of governments across the political spectrum. The second part borders on slander. It casts aspersions on the personal integrity of an individual whose reputation for uprightness has been consistently above board.
Add to this the fact that successive governments, regardless of their party labels, have appointed retired judges to various statutory posts. The NDA regime was quite generous in this regard. Is it the BJP's contention that they carried out their responsibilities to please those who had appointed them? And what about the CAG? He lambasted the government and that too on American soil. There was not a whisper of reproach from the BJP. So why is it hounding Justice Katju?
The answer is blowing in the wind. What has in fact got the BJP's goat is Justice Katju's stand on Narendra Modi. In an article published in a national daily, the PCI chairman has gone on record to state that the Gujarat chief minister's alleged role in the 2002 communal riots cannot ever be ignored. And he has challenged Modi's claim that under his dispensation the state has registered spectacular growth. As is his wont, he has expressed his views in a language that is forthright to the point of being provocative. It is not enough for him to call a spade a spade. He has to call it a bloody shovel.
At a time when the BJP, along with its extended sangh parivar, is gearing up to project the chief minister at home and abroad as the miracle doctor who will cure all Congress-generated ills afflicting the nation, it won't take lying down even a hint that he is no more than a quack. But imagine for a moment that the PCI chairman had patted Modi on the back for his record in office: providing clean, transparent, accountable and effective governance to Gujarat, giving a massive boost to the state's economy even while ensuring that the state figures high on the Human Development Index, instilling trust in the minorities and, not least, observing the raj dharma in the 2002 communal violence. Would the BJP then still have argued that heaping such lavish praise on the sangh parivar's brightest star is tantamount to crossing the Laxman rekha?
The real victim of the fusillade of invectives exchanged by the two sides is decency in our public discourse. In the bargain, the stature of both Justice Katju and Arun Jaitley stands diminished. But a caveat is in order. Justice Katju has been called a maverick who speaks his mind without a care for the consequences. India needs more mavericks like him- provided of course that they don't wear two hats – to offer some relief from the predictable rants of anchors, party hacks and sycophants that gush forth from our TV screens night after night.
Comments
Post a Comment