The relief granted to Telangana politician K. Kavitha through bail in corruption and money laundering cases linked to an alleged Delhi excise policy scam upholds the principle, often quoted by the Supreme Court, that bail is the rule and jail is only an exception.
The process cannot be like punishment without trial, which is what many Opposition politicians, including the incarcerated Delhi chief minister, have suffered. Judging the merits of the cases against them, filed by Central investigating agencies like the Enforcement Directorate and the CBI, is a different matter, though the handling of the cases has routinely drawn caustic comments from judges.
It has been established in Kavitha’s case as well as that of an aide of a Jharkhand politician similarly charged under PMLA that bail must be granted in cases being dealt with even under such stringent laws. It stands to reason then that all those in jail must be released on bail until their innocence or guilt is established in court even if the judicial process is such it may take a very long time for cases to be concluded and judgments delivered.
The matter of establishing proof in such cases in which large sums of money change hands in possible instances of quid pro quo, can be attempted only if the beans of the conspiracy are spilled by someone in the inner ring. It is, of course, open to question what credibility approvers will have since they must incriminate themselves to come over to the side of the law.
Given the slipshod methodology of investigating agencies in the matter of pursuing graft among politicians in public life and the more proficient lawyers that those accused can command, it is on record that only two or three prominent personalities have been proved guilty in 77 years of Independent India. Many may have been accused of scams, including in disproportionate assets cases, but they have invariably walked free.
