The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the plea for a probe into corruption charges against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and others, including former Delhi CM Sheila Dikshit, is based purely on inadmissibility of evidence. Having weighed the evidence — the petitioner was asked twice to bring something substantial — and considered it again in the light of various pronouncements, including of the Constitution Bench, the court’s conclusion had a definitive ring to it. A set of insinuations based on diary entries and random computer ramblings can’t possibly be in-depth material of evidentiary value in launching a probe or prosecution against high constitutional functionaries. The case was lost on the merit of evidence submitted and it was churlish of the petitioner-lawyer to berate the court for declaring the case devoid of merit.
It’s a sacrosanct principle of democracy that no one is above the law. It’s a fair expectation that complaints against anyone of corruption in public life be examined thoroughly, perhaps in direct proportion to the gravity of the office held. However, it also stands to reason that the highest constitutional authorities be protected over flimsy charges being hurled against them. If Prime Ministers and chief ministers, who are chief executives of the nation and the states respectively, are tied down by corruption charges motivated purely by politics, their role in the administration could be severely circumscribed.
This is not to suggest that chief ministers haven’t been guilty of corruption. In fact, many have been proved to be corrupt and have been prosecuted by Central agencies and even disbarred from holding office after being unable to prove themselves innocent under the strict provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Truth to tell, the country has a huge threshold of tolerance on corruption in high places. But given the nature of the court processes and appeals procedures, even those found guilty are walking around freely even if they are technically only out on bail. Where the system fails is in ensuring through prosecution of the corrupt till the bitter end — even in cases where the evidence is clinching. Some cases have even gone on for decades without final judgments being delivered.
On the political front, the verdict brings huge relief to the Prime Minister even as those who picked up the flimsy charges and tried to blow them up by projecting them as “earthquake-inducing” are exposed as users of borrowed material for political manoeuvring. The evidentiary inadequacy of this particular case should not, however, stop the efforts of those who are committed to fighting corruption in public life in India even if they know how much the system is loaded against nailing corrupt politicians. A lot more than innuendo is needed to nail corruption in high places.
