The ordinance route

Shiban  Khaibri
Let us momentarily agree that there was a dire feeling simmering within the “poor friendly” UPA2 to get as fast as possible, the provisions of the Food Security Bill reach out to the poor and the lesser privileged sections of the society for which it could not afford to wait even for a couple of days to get it passed in the Parliament and hence promulgated an ordinance, what compulsions did it have to resort to the ordinance route to protect and insulate the tainted, the jailed and  the convicted law makers in our country?  On Sept 24, the Union Cabinet decided to have an ordinance issued which had the effect of nullifying a very important judgment of the Supreme Court of India which ruled that the lawmakers convicted of offences punishable with two years or more would stand disqualified from the membership of the Parliament or state legislative Assemblies with effect from the date of conviction by a trial court. In other words, now a law maker won’t lose his or her seat either in the Parliament or state legislature, merely on the ground of a two year conviction and till the time the appeal is pending against the conviction and if the sentence of the conviction is stayed by a higher court, the provisions of the ordinance would equally apply.. The Apex court had by its order, denied to the convict lawmaker any immunity which this ordinance reverses to the benefit of the sentenced lawmaker and thus struck down Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People’s  Act which protected the convicted lawmakers from immediate disqualification. The timing of the ordinance makes it all the more suspect in the eyes of the people as RJD chief Lalu Prasad whose party is an ally of the present dispensation, has to face the court judgment in a criminal case on Sept 30 and could  lost his seat in the Parliament in case of a conviction. It also is to bail out Rashid Masood, a Rajya Sabha Congress member convicted in a corruption case by a special CBI court.
This is quite intriguing, it is equally baffling, and it is a contradiction of the perceptions showcased and the reality on ground that the Congress was opposed to criminalization of politics or politicizing the crime. The hapless citizen is undone over watching the antithetically of events in the name of democracy and fair-play laced with transparency in politics and governance. The citizen of India feels aghast  seeing the fence itself poised to devouring and ravishing the garden which was supposed to protect it. In other words, Netas are to bail out Netas.  A mild  soothing development is in the shape of the principal opposition party, the BJP opposing the ordinance as it had earlier refused its support to amendments to the Representation of the People’s Act  at the time when the Law Minister had moved it in the Parliament  and now they say that they would oppose the “contents” of the ordinance and request the President to withhold his assent to ostensibly show that Mr Mukherkee is not any Congressman but only and only the President of the Indian Republic.
How does it augur all well when we have as many as 162 out of 543 MPs of the Lok Sabha having criminal cases pending and out of whom 75 are facing very serious criminal charges? There are 1326 members of the state legislatures having criminal cases against them. Serious criminal charges include those of rape, murder, attempt to murder, extortion, kidnapping, robberies and the like. Granting the liberal right to appeal via the proposed ordinance to the convicted lawmakers has the potentiality to get immunity inconsistent with the contents of the Apex  Court’s July 10 ruling. On the other hand, the President has given its approval to a bill to make it a law by virtue of which politicians in jail and under Police custody could  contest elections. The Parliament had passed the bill on Sept6. Presenting the bill, the Law Minister Kapil Sibel had said,” Sometimes we make mistakes and sometimes the courts can; in this case, they made a mistake and we are correcting it.”
The desire to cling and keep clinging to the power seat is so intense and firmly rooted that going to any level downwards is attributed to the “Dharma of Coalition”, and its inherent compulsions to this extent, that accused law makers supporting the UPA2 and many in the Congress party or in other parties of the coalition facing criminal charges, have to be protected and safeguarded all in their interests, the coalition interests, in the name of “safeguarding of democracy”. The morality and honesty become easiest causalities. To cap it all and justify the ordinance, Congress through its official spokesperson says that,” Ordinance is not an undemocratic act by any government. It is not a backdoor method. It has to have a nod of the Parliament and it will go to the Parliament in its next session.” Congress party further says that the ordinance is meant to avoid constitutional errors that may arise in case a law maker who lost his seat in Parliament or state legislature upon conviction by a trial court was later acquitted. How much of such concern is being shown for ordinary citizens of this country many of whom are languishing in jails and awaiting judgments for years together and for petty crimes? Perhaps that is why a PIL has been filed in the Supreme Court of India seeking quashing of the Government move. The petitioner has contended that the move (of the ordinance) was a fraud played by the political leaders to “demolish the basic structure of the constitution and as such was illegal and unconstitutional.”
When and under which conditions can ordinances (especially of the sort under reference) be promulgated notwithstanding the executive or the cabinet having all powers to do it but generally speaking the constitution says that “when President is satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary”….., which grave circumstances exited for this ordinance to be approved by the cabinet and sent to the President for his assent under Article 123 of the constitution? There exists no National Emergency. There exist no compulsive and urgent circumstances so as to have an ordinance issued by the Government. The whole exercise is to protect, support and to give a leeway to the convicted and  tainted politicians as if we the Indians, are destined to have such legislators to rule us some of whom could be brazenly history sheeters and even convicted and serving jail terms. Why there is no such policy of legal “protectionism” to an ordinary citizen when on the contrary, the sensitivities attached to the character of the lawmakers should have the maxim of “Guilty till proved innocent and not the vice versa” as the one who is a lawmaker is supposed to be exceptionally a person of virtue and honesty having no link , not even in the lest, with any sort of crime, scam, nepotism, embezzlement , corruption, moral turpitude of any type and be neat and clean in its dealings with others.  The move, therefore, appears to be   a political blitzkrieg to demonstrate the authority of power, that such power could be used to set aside a very important and innovative ruling of the Apex Court of the country which had given a glimmer of a silver lining to the Indian citizens from the hovering darkest clouds of politics of crime and had impliedly created a space for the near future for initiation of the attempts for bringing about some electoral reforms in the country.

Follow our WhatsApp channel