An outrageous act of vendetta

SUNDAY, JULY 1, 2001

THE ARREST OF the former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and DMK president, Mr. M. Karunanidhi, effected in a post-midnight operation that brought back memories of the dark days of the Emergency, smacks of political vendetta and deserves to be condemned in the strongest of terms, whatever may have been the justification for the action itself. The crude manner in which it was carried out - the unearthly hour chosen for the operation and the physical force employed by the police in the process of taking him into custody without any regard for his age or health - is an affront to human dignity. The way the Jayalalithaa Government has been going about the task of delving into the official records and coming up with allegations of corrupt practices against the erstwhile DMK regime gave one the unmistakable impression that it would not be long before the law enforcers zeroed in on Mr. Karunanidhi, his son and Chennai Mayor, Mr. M. K. Stalin, and several of his other close associates. In fact, even during her election campaign, Ms. Jayalalithaa had never minced words about her designs (on coming to power) vis-a-vis her chief political adversary, and her various statements and deeds as Chief Minister betrayed an unseemly hurry to realise her `ambition' and, in the process, sent wrong signals especially to the law enforcement agencies which evidently felt encouraged to act highhandedly, as evidenced by the way they handled mediapersons performing their duty. Mr. Karunanidhi who figures as the second accused, after Mr. Stalin and along with 12 others, in the Rs. 12-crore `flyover scam', has been charged with criminal conspiracy, cheating, criminal breach of trust, etc., apart from offences under the anti-corruption law.

In a sense, the `AIADMK versus DMK' combat Tamil Nadu is witnessing now is an action replay of what was on show after the 1996 Assembly elections, except that the AIADMK was at the receiving end then, with Ms. Jayalalithaa being arrested for her alleged involvement in a slew of criminal cases, quite a few of which are still in different stages of trial or appeal. Unlike in Ms. Jayalalithaa's case, where the arrest had come after all her endeavours to get anticipatory bail from courts at different levels had proved futile, the police moved swiftly to take Mr. Karunanidhi into custody within hours of the filing of an FIR on the basis of a complaint from the Commissioner of the Chennai Corporation, and this is what set it qualitatively apart from Ms. Jayalalithaa's arrest, rendering it highly reprehensible. It cannot be anyone's case that high-profile politicians suspected of having committed serious criminal offences should be treated with kid gloves. In the current political context, there is in fact a strong case for credible initiatives to counter the widely-shared impression that those who have been in high positions of authority are less accountable than the ordinary citizens to the laws of the land. But the much-quoted dictum `the law must take its course' does have an important implication, which is that pre-trial arrest must be resorted to only where it is strictly needed for the purposes of investigation, and should not be used as a punishment.

No less imperative is to ensure that the process of investigation into alleged criminal offences is not turned into a vehicle for political persecution through motivated interference. This route, of course, seeks to serve the cause of accountability much better than that of the `commission of inquiry', which almost invariably proved an exercise in futility for want of follow-up action. At the same time, it carries the inherent risk of a vindictive successor Government being tempted to use the authority of the state to settle scores with or harass or victimise its political opponents who had been in power by trumping up criminal charges. And this risk seems to be very real, going by the current trend. Given the spread and severity of the canker of corruption among public men across almost the entire political spectrum in the country, it would be ideal if a mechanism of checks and audit is built into the political system so that any instance of abuse of authority or malfeasance is detected and dealt with promptly, an important component of which being, of course, an independent and thoroughly professional investigative/prosecution agency. Otherwise, there appears to be no escape for the public from being treated to the spectacle of persons holding office enjoying total immunity while in power but becoming vulnerable to arrest and prosecution the moment they are out of office.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Next     : Rail safety derailed