Salman Khurshid is one of those Union ministers who are both able and articulate. These are attributes with which the council of ministers is not overburdened. It’s all the more regrettable therefore that he should have been the one to propound the doctrine that virtually amounts to the firman that top businessmen must never be locked up. “If you lock up top businessmen, will investment come?” he asked, having argued at some length earlier that what the country needed was to “encourage growth and investment”, and he followed this up with a homily to the judiciary and “other institutions” to “understand the kind of political economy we are faced with”.
Since it could not have been the law minister’s case that India’s higher judiciary, bypassing the government and its investigation agencies, arbitrarily rounds up and “locks up” innocent captains of industry and business, his lament must have been on behalf of the four corporate honchos currently in the slammer in accordance with due process of law in the infamous 2G case. A former Union Cabinet minister, A. Raja, and a Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) MP, K. Kanimozhi, who is also the daughter of M. Karunanidhi, the DMK patriarch, are also keeping the “top business” company in Tihar jail. Why not a word about these politicos and so much fuss about corporate bosses?
In fairness to Mr Khurshid, two points must be conceded. First, that rapid growth and investment, both foreign and indigenous, are vital for the country, especially now that growth rate is declining, as are foreign investments, and India’s own capital is rushing abroad. Whoever may have scripted them, Bill Clinton’s four words — “It’s the economy, stupid” — remain among the wisest uttered during the 20th century. But this cannot mean that “top businessmen” should be immune from arrest and imprisonment, no matter what crime they may be charged with. Political economy cannot have precedence over the rule of law. Tainted tycoons and corporate crooks cannot enjoy complete immunity.
None of the law minister’s colleagues has come to his defence. Only Manish Tewari, one of the 18 spokespersons of the Congress, who has never been known for making an understatement, called upon all concerned to note that Mr Khurshid hadn’t justified the “aberrations” (oh, what a lovely euphemism!) of anyone. Unfortunately, there is not a singe word in his original statement as published, nor in any explanation since then that he has issued only through the government’s law officers, to sustain Mr Tewari’s claim.
Indeed, when the Supreme Court took strong exception to the law minister’s statement, the additional solicitor-general submitted that the statement was “not case-specific” and certainly didn’t refer to the accused in the 2G case. If so, for whom was Mr Khurshid pleading? For the owner of Satyam who is under trial for the biggest corporate fraud? Or for the Bellary Reddys who have been hauled to jail from their hyper-luxurious homes for allegedly looting the country’s mineral wealth?
This, I’m afraid, knocks down also the second point that could have been made in support of Mr Khurshid’s pronouncement: that he was trying to say gingerly what the BJP leader, Jaswant Singh, had said explicitly — that the repeated denial of bail to the 2G accused was against normal judicial practice. In any case, none of the gentlemen concerned lacks funds to hire the best legal brains to argue their bail applications that, incidentally, have always been opposed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). At the end of the day, however, the courts must decide. Those dissatisfied with the verdict can always appeal to a higher court or, in the case of the apex court, file a revision petition. Remarkably, the Supreme Court laughed out the law officer’s contention that the CBI was “not a part of the government!”
While “reacting strongly” to Mr Khurshid’s pronouncement, the Supreme Court had occasion to observe: “The minister’s views sounded as if this court is interested in keeping these individuals in prison.” Justice G. S. Singhvi remarked that if this was “the government’s stand, the proceedings in the court will remain unaffected”. To this Justice H.L. Dattu added that even as a “personal view” the statement was “not proper” and was “inappropriate”.
By the time the apex court took up the matter, Mr Khurshid had evoked trenchant criticism from the left, right and centre of the political spectrum. To add to his discomfiture, 14 highly respected industrialists and eminent persons, including Azim Premji, Deepak Parekh, Ashok Ganguly and Bimal Jalan (the last former governor of the Reserve Bank), in an open letter had focused on “governance deficit, enormous corruption and strong nexus between certain corporates, politicians, bureaucrats and power brokers”. Surely, this has something to do with discouraging foreign investors.
Finally, no country is more solicitous about the super-rich than the United States. Despite his best efforts amidst a grave economic crisis, US President Barack Obama has not been able to withdraw the generous tax reductions given to them by former US President George Bush. But the US is never reluctant to punish the wrongdoers
among its pampered plutocrats. No wonder, America is in the grip of the “Occupy Wall Street” campaign against corporate greed that has now spread to 495 cities in 82 countries from Europe to Japan and Australia. India could well be the next
to join.