Establishing the rule of law

JUDICIAL OBSERVATIONS CAN sometimes be more noteworthy than the actual orders they accompany. The Supreme Court's order extending the stay on the release of Veerappan's associates was not altogether unexpected. But the court's observations are a stunning indictment of the Karnataka Government's decision to barter Veerappan's associates (many of whom are charged with committing serious crimes) for the Karnataka filmstar, Mr. Rajkumar, and others he holds in custody. While its ruling on the special leave petition (SLP) that challenged the proposed associates-for-hostages swap will be made later, the court made no secret of what was on its mind, indicating that the deal was entered into for wholly extraneous or political reasons. There may have been a rhetorical touch in the suggestion that a Government which succumbed to Veerappan's demands after having failed to nab him for eight years had better ``quit'' to make way for another. Karnataka was following precedents set by the Centre and was working in tandem with Tamil Nadu, which had been allowed by the Madras High Court to deal with the issue as it pleased. But there is no mistaking the judicial indignation at the manner in which Veerappan's patently illegal demand was acceded to by those negotiating with him. Karnataka may have borne the court's fury but everything it said applies by extension to Tamil Nadu, which had initiated steps to free five detenus linked to Tamil extremist groups. In connection with a related petition, the court has issued notice to the Tamil Nadu Government regarding the way it has handled the cases so far.

The extension of the stay and the Supreme Court's remarks contain many significant implications. The first, and most immediate, of course, is that the associates-for-hostages deal cannot be the basis for securing Mr. Rajkumar's release. To what extent, this will affect the negotiations, which are poised at an extremely delicate stage, remains to be seen. Although the Karnataka Government has declared it would appeal against the continuance of the stay, it seems highly unlikely that, after having said the things it did, the Supreme Court will be in a mood to permit the release of the detenus. The court has orally demolished the principal argument in favour of the release - that it was being done for the larger purpose of maintaining peace in Karnataka - and it is difficult to see what other justification the State Government can proffer in this connection.

India's political establishment has easily surrendered to the blackmail of hostage-takers. In succumbing to Veerappan, the Governments of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu (after ``compounding negligence upon negligence upon negligence'' to use the court's memorable phrase) have travelled a road which was laid much earlier. The release of Kashmiri militants in exchange for the former Union Home Minister, Mufti Mohammed Sayeed's daughter or for a planeload of hijacked passengers at Kandahar are two examples of such surrender. The court's remarks have a bearing on all cases where the State is prepared to take ``illegal and unreasonable'' steps to appease the tactics of blackmail. The safety of Mr. Rajkumar, who enjoys a huge fan following and an iconic status in Karnataka, and the others in Veerappan's custody must remain the most important calculation in all attempts to find a solution to the crisis. Of this there can be no argument or debate. But the question is whether Governments should subvert the rule of law and abandon the principles of justice while giving in to blackmail. Such questions would not have even been asked had the Tamil Nadu and Karnataka Governments displayed a firm resolve to nab Veerappan. The real tragedy is how a conspicuous lack of political and administrative will has resulted in the inability to apprehend a brigand and his small and relatively ill-equipped gang for so many years.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Next     : Religions for peace