The Bombay special judge, Mr. RB Sule’s decision to discharge Mr. AR Antulay from trial on charges under the prevention of corruption act must come as a shock to the whole country. In sum, the judge has held that the former Maharashtra chief minister is still a public servant by virtue of being a legislator, that the state legislative assembly alone can sanction his prosecution on corruption charges, and that in the absence of such a sanction he (the judge) lacks the necessary jurisdiction to go ahead with the cases against him (Mr. Antulay). This interpretation of the law is contrary to what most Indians, including eminent lawyers, have so far understood the law to be. Thus when Mr. Ramdas Nayak and Mr. PB Sawant first sought to initiate proceedings against Mr. Antulay in 1981 on corruption charges, no one ever raised the issue whether the vidhan sabha’s sanction was necessary to enable the court to take cognizance of the cases. The questions then were whether the governor’s permission was necessary and whether the governor would grant it. It was then held by the court that the governor’s sanction was indeed needed. And finally, after Mr. Antulay had been forced to step down following a judgment by Justice Lentin of the Bombay high court holding that there was a nexus between Mr. Antulay receiving certain amounts of money from some of the city’s builders and his granting cement quotas to them, the governor gave the necessary permission for Mr. Antulay’s prosecution. Mr. Sule has now held that those who proceeded on the assumption that this was enough were sadly mistaken.
We are not specialists in law. So it is not for us to say whether or not the law admits of the interpretation which Mr. Sule has given it. This is a matter which the Supreme Court alone can settle. But it is self-evident that it could not be the intention of parliament to place all legislators above the law in respect of corruption charges. From the debate on the issue also it is clear that it only sought to protect public servants (and ministers) from being unjustly dragged to court by interested individuals on false charges. That is why it provided for the President’s (or his nominee’s) permission for prosecution in such cases. In Mr. Antulay’s case, the charges against him arise out of his actions as chief minister and the governor’s sanction covered that aspect of the matter. It is not clear how his status as a legislator is relevant in this matter. Law, as critics often say, is an ass. But there must be a limit beyond which law cannot go against common sense and considerations of public morality. On Mr. Sule’s interpretation, the prevention of corruption act recognizes no such limit. It places all legislators in a special category. For so far no one has ever suggested that a public servant cannot be prosecuted without the legislature’s sanction. Scores of such prosecutions have in fact been launched in the past under the act without such permissions. So Mr. Antulay is not just a “public servant”: he is a special kind of public servant, shall we say legislator-public servant.
Mr. Antulay, as we have pointed out in the past, is also a special kind of politician. He was not embarrassed by the disclosures that he had collected crores of rupees for trusts set up by him under his own charge. Indeed, he tried to make it out that he was being “pursued” because he was a friend of the poor. He continued to put on a brave face on the fact that Mrs. Gandhi ordered him to step down in the wake of Mr. Lentin’s judgment. So much so that he not only continued to pretend that he still enjoyed her support but let it be known widely that she did not have much of an option. At one stage he even threatened to expose people in high places, clearly a euphemism for the Prime Minister and her family. It was, therefore, only to be expected that he would treat his discharge on a wholly technical ground as an honourable exoneration and begin planning a political comeback. He has done precisely that. Within hours of Mr. Sule’s decision, he has launched himself and begun inspiring reports that the Congress (I) leadership has big plans for him. And such is the political atmosphere in Bombay that some MLAs are already anxious to get under his umbrella. It is, therefore, urgent that Mrs. Gandhi loses no time to dispel the impression he is seeking to create. If she delays action, she will be playing into his hands and in the process unnecessarily embarrass herself in the eyes of people for whom Mr. Antulay stands for the very opposite of what they regard desirable in public life.