- News>
Accused-approver poser may save Rao
The oft-repeated adage `be you ever so high, the law is above you` was an academic expression till the other day. But with former Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao`s conviction for bribing the three Jharkand Mukti Morcha MPs to save his government during an Opposition-sponsored no-trust move, the adage seems to have become a practical aspect of Indian polity.
The oft-repeated adage “be you ever so high, the law is above you” was an academic expression till the other day. But with former Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao’s conviction for bribing the three Jharkand Mukti Morcha MPs to save his government during an Opposition-sponsored no-trust move, the adage seems to have become a practical aspect of Indian polity.
Rao has been awarded a three-year jail term and fined Rs one lakh.
Special judge Ajit Bharihoke has sentenced Rao and his Cabinet colleague Buta Singh, holding that they were the beneficiaries of the conspiracy to bribe the MPs. He has acquitted Rao’s Cabinet colleague Satish Sharma, former minister Ajit Singh, former Haryana Chief Minister Bhajan Lal besides a few other Rao sympathisers. Will it stand final scrutiny?
Whether Bharihoke`s unprecedented judgment in the country`s judicial history would stand the test of final judicial scrutiny is a million dollar question.
Bharihoke has relied on the statement of a bribed JMM MP, Shailendra Mahto, after granting him approver status.
The trial was an offshoot of the Supreme Court`s fractured 3:2 judgment, which had ironically held that the bribe takers were immune from any legal action for their action inside the House. Since the bribe was given to them for voting against the no-confidence motion in the House, the JMM MPs could not be tried under the Prevention of Corruption Act or Indian Penal Code. Though they had sold their votes to save the Rao government, the majority three-judge bench had said the MPs enjoyed constitutional immunity guaranteed under Article 105(2). The accused-approver conundrum Thus, Bharihoke discharged the three MPs but decided that Mahato be made an approver. Incidentally, under the law, only an accused can be made an approver. When the Supreme Court had ruled that no trial could start against the MPs who had taken bribe, it meant that they could not be an accused in the corruption and conspiracy case. Thus, there is inherent contradiction in judge Bharihoke`s decision.
Secondly, judge Bharihoke held that Rao and Buta Singh were the only beneficiaries of the bribing. It ought not be forgotten that under the Indian parliamentary system, there shall always be a Prime Minister and a Cabinet to aid and advise the President. There can never be a Prime Minister alone. He must have a Cabinet also. In the parliamentary democracy system supported by a multi-party mechanism, the political functionaries, whether independents or representing varied political parties, have enormous stakes in the survival or defeat of a government. More than two beneficiaries Judge Bharihoke`s view that Rao and Buta Singh were the only beneficiaries of the Rao government surviving the no-trust vote is sure to be a matter of heated legal arguments before the High Court and ultimately, the Supreme Court.
Belated exercise
Strangely, the judge has now ordered the CBI to register cases against the discharged JMM MPs and find out the source of the bribes, which they had deposited in a Delhi bank.
Legal experts feel that the court`s direction was rather belated if not unwarranted, for no court could take cognisance of the charge of accepting bribe against them, in view of the Supreme Court judgment!
It would have to be seen whether the High Court and the apex court confirm Bharihoke’s judgment or not.
Surely, there is a need to amend Article 105(2) of the Constitution with a view to specifying the actions of MPs, which can be beyond the scope of judicial scrutiny. Free speech and voting deserve constitutional protection. But motivated voting and speech on accepting gratification are a grave crime.
Special judge Ajit Bharihoke has sentenced Rao and his Cabinet colleague Buta Singh, holding that they were the beneficiaries of the conspiracy to bribe the MPs. He has acquitted Rao’s Cabinet colleague Satish Sharma, former minister Ajit Singh, former Haryana Chief Minister Bhajan Lal besides a few other Rao sympathisers. Will it stand final scrutiny?
Whether Bharihoke`s unprecedented judgment in the country`s judicial history would stand the test of final judicial scrutiny is a million dollar question.
Bharihoke has relied on the statement of a bribed JMM MP, Shailendra Mahto, after granting him approver status.
The trial was an offshoot of the Supreme Court`s fractured 3:2 judgment, which had ironically held that the bribe takers were immune from any legal action for their action inside the House. Since the bribe was given to them for voting against the no-confidence motion in the House, the JMM MPs could not be tried under the Prevention of Corruption Act or Indian Penal Code. Though they had sold their votes to save the Rao government, the majority three-judge bench had said the MPs enjoyed constitutional immunity guaranteed under Article 105(2). The accused-approver conundrum Thus, Bharihoke discharged the three MPs but decided that Mahato be made an approver. Incidentally, under the law, only an accused can be made an approver. When the Supreme Court had ruled that no trial could start against the MPs who had taken bribe, it meant that they could not be an accused in the corruption and conspiracy case. Thus, there is inherent contradiction in judge Bharihoke`s decision.
Secondly, judge Bharihoke held that Rao and Buta Singh were the only beneficiaries of the bribing. It ought not be forgotten that under the Indian parliamentary system, there shall always be a Prime Minister and a Cabinet to aid and advise the President. There can never be a Prime Minister alone. He must have a Cabinet also. In the parliamentary democracy system supported by a multi-party mechanism, the political functionaries, whether independents or representing varied political parties, have enormous stakes in the survival or defeat of a government. More than two beneficiaries Judge Bharihoke`s view that Rao and Buta Singh were the only beneficiaries of the Rao government surviving the no-trust vote is sure to be a matter of heated legal arguments before the High Court and ultimately, the Supreme Court.
Belated exercise
Strangely, the judge has now ordered the CBI to register cases against the discharged JMM MPs and find out the source of the bribes, which they had deposited in a Delhi bank.
Legal experts feel that the court`s direction was rather belated if not unwarranted, for no court could take cognisance of the charge of accepting bribe against them, in view of the Supreme Court judgment!
It would have to be seen whether the High Court and the apex court confirm Bharihoke’s judgment or not.
Surely, there is a need to amend Article 105(2) of the Constitution with a view to specifying the actions of MPs, which can be beyond the scope of judicial scrutiny. Free speech and voting deserve constitutional protection. But motivated voting and speech on accepting gratification are a grave crime.