In a manner characteristic of him, the former Maharashtra chief minister, Mr. AR Antulay, is busy confusing issues arising out of the recent Supreme Court judgment which has allowed his prosecution on charges of corruption outstanding against him. He has once again put on an air of injured innocence and successfully inspired a signature campaign among Congress legislators in Maharashtra in support of the twin demands, that the Prevention of Corruption Act be amended by an ordinance to include legislators among public servants and that the ordinance be made applicable to existing cases, a euphemism for the case against Mr. Antulay. For no other such case is pending against any other legislator anywhere in the country. It is possible that many more party legislators will sign the memorandum. For this too has become a form of dissidence against the Chief Minister, Mr. Vasantdada Patil. On the eve of the Supreme Court judgment and perhaps in anticipation of it, Mr. Antulay had made common cause with his detractors. Apparently, the tactics are paying good dividends.
To begin with, it needs to be emphasized once again that Mr. Antulay is not being prosecuted for any thing he has done as an ordinary MLA and that he is not being prosecuted without due permission from the relevant authority. The charges against him relate to the period when he was chief minister of Maharashtra; that is, when he was a public servant in terms of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The relevant authority to sanction his prosecution was the Governor who gave the necessary permission. It is true that the permission was given after he had resigned as chief minister following a clear finding by Mr. Justice Lentin of the Bombay High Court that there was a nexus between the allotment of cement quotas by the state government to certain builders and the payment by them of huge sums of money into various trusts set up and headed by Mr. Antulay. But the permission related to his activities as chief minister. So on trial is a former chief minister on charges which arise out of his actions as chief minister and not an ordinary legislator on account of his actions as a legislator. The distinction is important and can be ignored only by those who believe that Mr. Antulay is above the law. Mr. Antulay has no doubts on this score; he is so made. The “little” surprise is that so many others, apparently not just in Bombay, should also think so.
Let us now take up the general issue whether legislators should be included in the category of public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Laws are as a rule enacted to cope with specific needs and situations. No such need has arisen in regard to legislators. As noted earlier, no case is pending in a court of law against any legislator (other than Mr. Antulay) anywhere in the country under the Act. In Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra, serious allegations of corruption have been made against Congress legislators in the past, but no complaint has ever been filed in a law court perhaps partly because, unlike in Mr. Antulay’s case, evidence that can stand scrutiny by a court might have been lacking and partly because ordinary citizens in India are too apathetic to take the necessary trouble. Thus, it just cannot be argued on the basis of the available evidence that “poor” legislators face the risk of being harassed and prevented from performing their duties unless they are protected through an ordinance or special legislation. Incidentally, the law the Congress legislators in Maharashtra are asking for can turn out to be a double-edged weapon. Once they are declared public servants, they become liable to investigation by official agencies and therefore vulnerable to pressure from those in power. And chief ministers these days are more worried about their own partymen than members of the opposition.
In recent years, the Supreme Court itself has taken up a number of “public interest” cases at the request of private citizens even though it has meant setting aside the established procedure. There can be, indeed there are, genuine differences of opinion on whether this is a healthy trend in our highest judiciary. But the analogy cannot hold in respect of complaints by private citizens against legislators on specific charges of corruption. The tragedy, if any, is that so many legislators get away with so much.