Fairness given a go by

Principles of natural justice dictate that anybody who is accused of a crime be given a fair trial. Also a judge cannot deliver an indictment unless guilt is established beyond all reasonable doubt. The basic logic is that while a guilty person may go scot free an innocent should not be punished. And this is possible only if the person who is to deliver the judgement is fair, impartial and has no ‘vested interests’ in the case.

These principles are not only applicable to the judiciary but also for persons holding high office who are in a position to deliver judgements even though not of a judicial nature. Dr Channa Reddy’s decision to allow prosecution proceedings against Ms Jayalalitha based purely on allegations made by Dr Swamy is clear instance where all principle of fair play has been thrown to the winds. This decision of the Governor though not carrying the finality of the pronouncement of a judge is yet significant for the undesirable forces that it could unleash. It is all the more striking for the dangerous precedent it has set and the element of vendetta that cannot be overlooked.

The Constitution vests with the Governor certain duties and obligations, the intent of which is to ensure smooth functioning of the government. Certain discretionary powers conferred on him are to be exercised only in case of a constitutional crisis like when the majority support of a Chief Minister is in question. The Governors all through despite several provocations have always confined themselves to these limits. Opposition parties in the never-ending game played between the political ins and outs will only demand the ouster of a Chief Minister on some charge or other. Governors who are fair will not take cognisance of these allegations. If they were to do so no duly elected Chief Minister can continue in office, even for a day.

But Dr Channa Reddy is a different man. Fair play and political decency are unknown in his chequered career. That this hangover should continue in his present disposition also is only natural. Respecting people’s verdict is anathema to him. That is why he has no qualms about openly associating with Opposition leaders who have been repeatedly rejected by the voters and thereby lending credence to their toppling game. He would not only take cognisance of allegations made by them but would make these charges himself. His interpretation of the constitutional duties of a Governor, it appears, is to sit on files and ensure that maximum trouble Is given to a duly elected government. His personal animosity towards Ms Jayalalitha has on several occasions led to a virtual paralysis of the State administration, which he is duty bound to protect.

The motives of Channa Reddy have been clear from the beginning. His unconcealed hostility for the Tamilnadu Chief Minister is enough for the depleted Opposition in Tamilnadu to find common cause with him. And it is no secret that all along he has been acting at their behest, as their representative and voicing their grievances. Such being the trackrecord of this Governor, he would only be too willing to be ‘provoked’ into coming out openly. And that precisely is what he has done, which is only expected. Perhaps the only area where he has used his discretion is in the timing of his decision, intended to cause maximum damage, as the Tamilnadu Assembly is in progress. It is entirely a different matter that the expected damage will not materialise, considering the overwhelming support from people of all walks of life which Ms Jayalalitha has got on this issue.

In the whole episode the tenet of fair play is not the sole victim. The very office of the Governor has been brought under a cloud, because of the existence of a clear motive in the decision taken by this occupant of the ‘palace of intrigues’ which is what the Raj Bhavan is. And that should do this is barely a fortnight after delivering the opening address to the Assembly in which he was all praise for the good performance of Ms Jayalalitha as Chief Minister, is an alarming contradiction that can best be described as a constitutional tragedy. The manifestation of this Jekyll-Hyde syndrome in a Head of State is indeed a cause for concern. It does not augur well for the Parliamentary system as well as the ‘titular’ institution of Governorship, if the Governors are unable to draw a line between their constitutional limits and personal likes and dislikes. And if such Governors are also to exercise their ‘pleasure’ that would be the death knell for democracy.

Tail piece:

Swamy has said that he would insist on the prosecution proceedings to be conducted in some other State as he has lost faith in the Tamilnadu judiciary. This ‘contempt’uous insinuation apart it would be interesting to know which State he will choose for its judicial fairness as almost all Chief Ministers have now condemned Dr Reddy’s action!

e-mail the writer at
[email protected]