RTI-EXPOSING THE IDIOTS AND TRAITORS AMOUNG PUBLIC
SERVANTS
PART 4- WAKE UP CALL
“Power will
go to the hands of rascals, rogues, freebooters; all Indian leaders will be of
low caliber & men of straw. They
will have sweet tongues & silly hearts.
They will fight amongst themselves for power & India will be lost in
political squabbles. A day would come
when even air & water would be taxed in India.”- Winston Churchill, opposing grant of freedom to
India
'...stop not until the goal is reached!’- Swami
Vivekanada
‘You are not
defeated until you give up!’- old
quote
On 15 Aug 1947 this
country is believed to have woken up to a new dawn of freedom. But shortly
after that a one man commission was appointed to assess the extent of
corruption in government offices. On submitting the report the author had
reportedly exclaimed that the experience had made him believe in God. On
questioned how, he had said ‘there is so much corruption but still the people
seem to be happy. It has to be the hand of God!’
There is no need to harp
on the status of citizens in a democracy. They are the sovereign entities. But
the way our institutions of governance were set up and nurtured the claim of
our’s being a democratic society may look preposterous. Nowhere are citizens of
a democratic society treated so shabbily as in this ever developing nation. So
it was that in the 1970s itself Lok Nayak Jayaprakash Narayan gave a call for a
second freedom struggle, even asking the soldiers in uniform not to obey
illegal orders of their superiors. What followed was Emergency. Inflicted on us
by a power hungry PM, Indira ( I am omitting the surname Gandhi, because I
consider it a misuse of the surname of the person who is revered as the Father
of the Nation) convicted for electoral malpractices by a high court and upheld
by the apex court, but had not only not (repeat not) been punished but quite
illogically been allowed to continue in office. But the citizens rose to the
occasion and at the first opportunity they got gave her the punishment she
deserved. But those who came to power squandered the opportunity. People
decided that a known devil is better than an unknown angel. On returning to
power though Indira tried to do better, it was impossible for her to do so what
with her nature not being tuned to democratic needs. Every institution of
governance suffered irrevocably. Corruption got institutionalized. Sycophancy
ruled the roost.
Meanwhile in Hong Kong a
silent revolution took place. When corruption had hit an all time high, the
Independent Commission against Corruption (ICAC) was established in 1974. Gradually,
the ICAC gained momentum and power. The ICAC adopted a three-pronged strategy
of effective law enforcement, prevention and education in the fight against
corruption, respectively undertaken by the Operations Department, the
Corruption Prevention Department and the Community Relations Department. No
doubt corruption took a nose dive there, though not completely eliminated.
In India the greatest
disaster has been the judiciary. Even the judges can be heard admitting the
huge back log of cases. But instead of trying to do anything about it (like
reducing their holidays or denying unwarranted adjournments) they are seen
simply passing the parcel by demanding more judges, more infrastructure and
more resources. They can be heard quoting an irrelevant judge to population
ratio to justify their demands. This is blasphemy. Any judge who quotes such a
ratio should be immediately considered unfit for the job he is tasked to
perform. The US of A which has only 25 percent of our population has many more
times cases filed than in our country
where a large percentage of population is still illiterate and the majority are
concerned only of their next meal. And of the remaining too, many, like me,
cannot even think of approaching a court for justice not only because of denial
of justice through preposterous delays but also due to the high cost involved. I
am among those who believe that the denial of justice is not only through
preposterous delays but it is quite often denied even at the end of it. Adv Prashant
Bhushan, talking on the need for a simpler judicial system, had said that ‘Not even 1 % get justice in present system’.
This 1% cannot be 1% of the population but only 1% of those who approach the
judiciary hoping to get justice. Please see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udJjDwGDREA&feature=youtu.be
I had the opportunity to
attend the valedictory function of a seminar on Access to Justice organized by
the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association a few years back. Ravi
Shankar Prasad, then Union Law Minister had painted the right picture then when
he said that at the beginning of the litigation proceedings the litigant went
by car and the advocate by cycle and by the time the litigation was over, the
litigant was on cycle and the advocate was driving by in a car! Recently, it
was reported in the media of Senior Advocate Ram Jethmalani claiming that his fee,
only for conference, was Rs 1 Cr!
Speaking of Ram
Jethmalani, there is an interesting incidence that was reported when he had
been Union Minister in A B Vajpayee cabinet. He had directed that all documents
in his ministry be made available for scrutiny to members of the public and if
they required it they could take copies also at a nominal fee. This was long
before the RTI Act was enacted and its predecessor the Freedom of Information
Act was being debated. The report said that the Secretary in the ministry took
up the matter with the Cabinet Secretary who told him he could hold on to the
proposal as the FoI Act was in the offing! And that shows the strangle hold of
our bureaucracy on the government. In an article titled ‘Survival by blackmail
or art of governance’ (Available at http://www.vijayvaani.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?aid=4595) I have dwelt on this in a little more detail.
Of the three organs of our
Constitution we have been freely blaming the politicians for everything. While
it is warranted only because it is them that we have empowered to steer this
country on the road to progress there is a need to appreciate their handicaps
also. Firstly, it is the short term for which they are elected. On this, of
course, nothing can be done. But what can be done is that certain
qualifications and experience have to be prescribed for the candidates aspiring
to be people’s representatives. Next, the accountability of the bureaucrats has
to be defined and all such protective armour like prior permission for their
prosecution has to be done away with. When being prosecuted or prosecuting they
should go through the litigation process in their personal capacities,
investing their own time and resources and being rewarded only if there is
material savings to the state. R.K.Raghavan writing in the Hindu of 23 Jan 2017
(‘Dealing with the deadwood’, available at http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/Dealing-with-the-deadwood/article17078468.ece?homepage=true) has stated ‘The
only obstacle in the way of drastic civil service reform — like the one pursued
by the present government at the Centre — is the judiciary that overturns or
stays every administrative action against an erring senior officer. Courts
would earn the admiration of a harassed public if they stopped interfering in
disciplinary matters once they are satisfied that prescribed procedures had
been followed in a case coming up before them and there is no malice writ large
on a decision. Judicial overstepping, while correcting unjust action against a
few honest civil servants, unwittingly promotes the cause of many unscrupulous
elements. The track record of administrative tribunals in the country is a
matter of great concern to those looking for a balanced and objective
bureaucracy.’
Having said that, there
are many important and urgent changes required in the way we elect and
compensate our elected representatives themselves. Some of the existing
practices are an insult to the very concept of democracy. Among these are
permitting candidates to contest from more than one constituency and allowing
even candidates rejected by the electorate to be a representative for six
months and then getting him elected to the Rajya Sabha or getting an elected
member to resign and make way for this ‘exalted’ candidate. On tasking, the way
elected representatives are seen doing things one is left wondering whether we
elect them to go about inaugurating various functions in their constituencies
or be our representatives in the law making bodies? Should they not be expected
to hold consultations and consolidate their constituency’s opinion on various
issues being taken up in the law making bodies and project them appropriately?
(For some out of the box thoughts on reforming our democracy please see the
blog at https://www.scribd.com/document/124887823/Democracy-East-is-East-and-West-is-West) And then there is the matter of compensation. While
ministers may be considered full time employees the other elected
representatives are not. Any citizen with an above average knowledge of the
environment in which he is living and can effectively take up issues that
needed attention and legislation should be able to represent his constituency
on a pro bono basis. They may also be
provided an ex gratia payment on completion of their tenure. But what we find
is that they are made eligible for salaries and even pension for themselves and
their spouses on highly objectionable terms. For example they become eligible
for a minimum pension from the moment they take oath, full pension on
completing one tenure and an increment for every year of additional service as
an elected representative. (This is when even short service commissioned
officers of the armed forces who do up to 10 years of service are not eligible
for any pension whatsoever!) As per information gathered under the RTI Act, the
pension disbursed to 3857 ex MPs/family pensioners of MPs, during the three
months Jan-Mar 2013 were Rs 38648441, 46891359 and 43554552 respectively. That
is an average of Rs 11150 per month. But that is peanuts compared to an amount
of Rs 2,545 crores paid by the Lok Sabha Secretariat to the railways towards
travel expenses of these ex MPs/family pensioners for the same quarter. And that
works out to Rs 22,00,000/- per pensioner MP/family pensioner per month. And we
are all familiar with the reference to Parliament as the cheapest
rehabilitation home for the aged, going by the subsidized food served in the
Parliament Canteen. Then there is also the objectionable practice of having
politicians who have outlived their political career enter the Parliament
through the Rajya Sabha. Conceptually atleast it is meant for representing
experts from various fields who cannot get elected through a popular ballot.
But apart from defanged politicians all you can find are film stars and
cricketers being provided berths there. Doctors, engineers, soldiers, artists,
litterateurs, industrialists etc need to be given representation, not only for
making their voices heard but also for using their expertise while framing laws
that pertain to their domain of expertise.
Taming the bureaucracy is
easily done provided there is a political will. Today most of the bureaucrats
are made to toe the line by unfair practices like threat of transfer to places
or appointments that are not generally coveted. In one instance the people of
Kasargode in north Kerala openly opposed the tendency to transfer employees
from southern districts to their district in what is popularly known as
punishment postings. There is definitely a need to provide fixed tenures for
these babus to perform effectively. In exceptional circumstances when they have
to be transferred before completion of their prescribed tenure a detailed
explanation should be made mandatory. But it should also be ensured thereafter
that they deliver their services to the satisfaction of the public. Even
technology can be used to collect feedback from citizens on their satisfaction
level in the matter of ease of doing business with public servants and this
should be a parameter for their career progression.
Making the judiciary transparent,
accountable, effective and efficient will remain a challenge as things are now.
Not only judgments but also the docket sheets should be published on the
websites of courts so that the public can study how effectively and judiciously
the judges are performing their duties. Since the judiciary has unwarrantedly
kept these out of purview of the RTI Act, let me quote an example of a consumer
dispute that was decided by the District Forum at Palakkad. For the uninitiated
the Consumer Protection Act has prescribed a period of 3 months to dispose of a
dispute.
In OP 282/1999 (OP No 85/1995
transferred from Malappuram), the opposite party had produced interim stay
order on 28/10/99 and the stay was
vacated only on 8/6/2005 but through out this period the case was listed 58 times and adjourned! It was finally posted for orders on 6/7/07 but was opened for re-hearing suo moto on 15/2/08 and went on an
adjournment spree from 3/3/08 to 31/5/2010. It was adjourned 17 times, including 5 times for want of
members/President and 10 times for orders only! It was dismissed when an
application was submitted under the RTI Act to find out the status!
Similarly, on a particular day, while all the disputes listed had been
adjourned enmass due to absence of staff, the attendance register showed the
complete staff as present!
Suggestions to the CM, Kerala to set up a
cell to monitor the performance of all the quasi judicial bodies have
fallen on deaf ears.
In the case of judiciary, it is aborable that provisions like the contempt
of court still exist in our Constitution and other statutes. The only
justification for its existance could be the need to ensure compliance with
orders of courts. But the truth is that you can hardly find it being used for
that prupose while being used freely to supress scrutiny and criticism. The
most recent conviction of a high court judge, C S Karnan, for contempt of court
when he had made specific allegations of corruption and the compromise reached
in the matter of 4 judges who cast aspersions on the Chief Justice of India
speak for itself.
Let me conclude with a parting question: doesn’t democracy demand a
Contempt of Citizen (Prevention of) Act?
