“Mr. Home Minister, the Agitators are not Criminals” Not Lifting Cases Against Telangana Agitators Is Breach Of Privilege -Prof. Madabhushi Sridhar

December 10, 2010 6:00 pm
Focus, Social Issues/ Human Interest
1 comment

Not withdrawing the criminal cases imposed on students and youth of Telangana during fierce agitation for separate state in 2009, even after the commitment made by the Union Home Minister, is a piece of irresponsive governance and red tape at higher level. Hundreds of young persons are going round the police stations for useless cases. Those criminal cases, legally speaking, do not stand in the courts of law also, because they are not like any other ordinary criminals and there was no malicious intention to commit such crime. A gherao cannot be treated as wrongful confinement, Rasta Roko as intentional obstruction to progress of a nation by blocking transport, ‘down-down’ slogans as defamation, criticism of government as sedition etc. Charging the agitators with crimes is one of the methods of rulers to suppress agitation or to terrorize the people from resorting to such anti-establishment programs. It is quite democratic, reasonable and more so required, to build pressure on Government to take proper decisions.

It is common in a democratic polity, that if political executive does not keep its commitments, people will resort to agitations. Wrong decisions, anti-social activities, perpetuating inequalities, not controlling the price rise, increasing corruption are various reasons people agitate against. Even violent and armed struggles emanate from worst administration and irresponsive and irresponsible governance. Of late, the executive is getting thick skinned to even genuine demands of the people. Mazdoor Kisan Sakthi Sanghatan leader Ms Aruna Roy has explained to a stunning audience how Rajasthan Government spent several lakhs to deny Rs. 1500 to workers as difference in payment of wages which they were genuinely entitled to under equal wages law. It led to a big law and order problem involving armed forces, firings, etc. It happened in Andhra Pradesh many times that employees of APSRTC agitated for improving working conditions and secure an agreement. It is so pathetic that they have to resort to strike for enforcement of that agreement also.

Mr. Chidambaram, as the Home Minister of this country has a Constitutional responsibility as a Constitutional office holder. He has authority to negotiate with agitating leaders like President of Telangana Rasthra Samithi Mr. K. Chandrasekhar Rao. It naturally stems from his authority to commit certain things in the wake of such agitations as done on December 9, 2009. Remember, Indian Home Minister handed over dreaded terrorist Afzal Guru in return to safety of Indians in plane hijacked to Kandhahar. The statement made to media, later reiterated in parliament can become issues of Government commitments which they cannot retreat. It is an open commitment made to an MP, former Minister and President of an agitating party after a prolonged fast unto death. This was also fortified when he made statement in two Houses of Parliament. They have a duty to comply with what they have committed to.

It is not just a political promise by a politician of Congress Party to another politician of TRS. It is not an electoral alliance, which cannot be enforced in a court of law, though it is a moral duty to adhere to what they promised to people. The commitment was made between two constitutional office holders, one the Home Minister the other agitating Parliamentarian which commitment was thereafter reiterated in both the Houses of Parliament. It is not merely a promise, a statement, a commitment, but it became a decision. Any breach of such a decision would amount to breach of privilege of Parliament for which Mr. KCR could issue a notice to speaker of Loksabha against the Home Minister or he could also issue a notice to Speaker of Lok Sabha against the Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Rosaiah, because it is his responsibility to enforce the decision announced by Union Government especially when both center and state are ruled by the same political party. Not keeping the commitment made to an agitating Parliamentarian is a disrespect for an MP and thus to the Parliament itself, as he is an elected representative of people of a duly recognized political party, in a properly conducted election by the Constitutional authority called Election Commission of India. And, also because the Home Minister cannot say one thing to the Parliament and do different outside. It is breach of privilege of the House because it was misled by an untruthful statement, which later became a hollow promise. Hence, not fulfilling the commitment made in the wake of agitation fueled by people support will be a privilege issue. A notice for breach Privileges of Parliament, as granted by Constitution of India is a weapon to force the compliance of commitments in general and for the release of arrested agitators in this particular case.

Union Home Minister also promised carving out of separate State for Telangana and stated that the process had already begun. This is also a major commitment by Union Government. Creation of Telangana State and introduction of Bill in the Parliament for that are more than mere commitment to lifting of cases and releasing the prisoners. It involves several other political and executive questions. Whether weapon of Breach of Privileges could be used for this commitment also? First of all one need to establish the ‘breach’ to go for privileges issue. Home Minister can argue, and is arguing, that they are committed to and the process is on, whereas, the non-withdrawal of cases is a case of clear breach. Demanding and agitating for fulfillment of that commitment to create a separate state or opposing it, is a political activity which law does not prevent.

Once, a senior police officer was speaking on security issues against terrorism in International scenario in NALSAR University of Law. He presented Mahatma Gandhi, Pandit Nehru, Subhash Chandra Bose as part of the history of terrorism. Eminent Constitutional Law Professor Pola Koteswar Rao, (died recently) who sat in the first row, rose even before he completed presentation and without mincing words questioned the officer for listing Mahatma and other national leaders among the terrorists. The officer has to swallow the words and the discussions in seminar took a new turn. This reflects the attitude of persons working with authorities. Those who fight for freedom are not terrorists and those who organize rasta roko are not against the transport. One thing the rulers should understand, those who agitate for a cause are not criminals.

It is illegal, unethical and immoral for Union Government to sit over the issue of lifting of criminal cases, and for those political parties along with their leaders, who supported the cause and then back-dropped for opportunistic political reasons. Whole episode reflects the current politics without any commitment to either values or their own statements. (27^th August 2010) (Author can be reached at professorsridhar@gmail.com)

________________________________________________________

The author is . .

Prof. Madabhushi Sridhar,