Telangana turmoil: Toying with the judiciary

Lack of faith in elected representatives and administrative machinery has seen people increasingly turning to judiciary to get things done. Well... faith in judiciary is good, but it doesn’t mean its understaffed machinery should be dragged into all matters — the latest row over Telangana statehood being the best example.

A Hyderabad court has directed the police to file a case against Union ministers P Chidambaram and Sushilkumar Shinde for making crucial announcements regarding the formation of Telangana, and subsequently failing to keep them.

The petitioner had moved the court saying the ministers should be booked under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for “cheating”. Now let us see what the law says.

Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Hello, where does this apply in the context of Telangana?

While one can understand the emotion behind the petition, the rationality of admitting a political policy decision should be considered more carefully. If politicians, whether holding public office or not, are to be booked and punished for not keeping their promises, there would hardly be anyone who can stay out of jail.

Considering the amount of lofty promises that politicians make regarding bringing development, introducing welfare measures, providing good governance and weeding out corruption (ROFL here..), cases against political class alone will be sufficient enough to create a separate wing of judiciary.

Crores of cases are pending in our courts – some of them dragging on for decades. Tens of thousands are languishing in overcrowded jails awaiting trial. Scores of them have spent more time behind bars than what the maximum punishment for their crime would have been.

Despite the crushing workload, curiously, there is always time for trivial cases like complaints against random movie stars for ‘indecent’ performances at stage shows, ‘obscene’ posters and ‘objectionable’ opinions.

One can’t help but wonder if the legal luminaries who drafted our laws did not have the foresight to include separate laws to protect the moral fabric of the society. May be, in the ongoing process of legal reforms, we should introduce laws on soul too!

A wise man once said “there is nothing permanent except change”. In realpolitik, policies and decisions keep changing to adapt with changing circumstances. This evolution is inevitable in the course of decision-making and progress.

If change of stance is a criminal offence, there would be no scope for the politics of alliances in India. When a party switches its support, it is never done with the approval of every single member and those who voted for it — therefore it would amount to fraud.

The legal system is in place to address grievances and provide justice. When it is abused for publicity and other vested interests, it is this original purpose which is being defeated. And we don’t need that... Do we?

(This article was published as the editorial column in Postnoon on January 30, 2013.)