The SC has refused to step into the area of corrupt politicians except in an advisory capacity. Given the wisdom of the judges of a Constitution Bench, perhaps more was expected by way of defining the parameters of clean politicians and cleaner politics rather than simply leaving it to the chief executive of the nation and the chief ministers to sweep the system clean.
Considering the reluctance with which politicians would rule against themselves or each other, it is doubtful if the obiter dictum will have any effect in cleansing the political system of those who have been charged with serious crimes or corruption.
Thanks to a top court judgment, a disqualifying provision already exists in that anyone pronounced guilty and given a jail term of more than two years cannot be an MLA or MP.
However, in not making it mandatory for ministers chargesheeted in serious crimes to step aside during the pendency of trial, the top court has allowed the status quo to prevail, which predictably will favour the politician.
Seeing how the system works with politicians disqualified from public office undertaking political work while out on very considerate bail provisions, it is possible to conclude that the law will be made to look irrelevant.
The politicians’ contention is many of the cases against them are political — persecution rather than prosecution.
The judges’ intentions in asking the topmost leaders to act as moral custodians would probably serve less purpose than fast-tracking cases against politicians, but the top court has refused to do this. Therein lies the disappointment.
