Dinesh Kamath's Editorial 'SC sets a good precedent' that was published in Newsband

SC sets a good precedent

The Supreme Court has come up with the decision to consider the relevance of the documents published in the media on the Rafale deal. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi observed that “the right of such publication would seem to be in consonance with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech”.

SC said in its previous verdict, “perceptions of individuals cannot be the basis of a fishing and roving enquiry by this court, especially in such matters”. There is nothing in these documents or the expose articles of this paper that points to wrong doing and it is unnecessary for the Govt. to have protested the use of these documents by the petitioners. That all aspects of the decision making process have been documented to be stolen and given this to this paper, should be enough to prove to the citizens that this Govt. has not tried to hide anything. It is a colossal waste of time of the SC and Indian tax payer’s money due to witch hunting.

Citizen-voters wish to know the truth behind Rafale deal. But they are not at all sure about intentions of the opposition parties. Do they wish to know the truth or wish to be in power on basis of allegations of corruption in the Rafale deal? Citizens are not sure that the Congress President is really against corruption. Citizens think that Rahul Gandhi wishes to make use of allegations of corruption to seize power and he is not at all serious about curbing corruption in defence deals. Hence, citizens wish that Rahul Gandhi should make a public announcement about what the Congress led government would do about Rafale deal if UPA govt. comes to power after 2019 Lok Sabha election. Would the Rafale deal be renegotiated or would it be cancelled? These questions are in citizens’ mind and they need a straight forward answer.

But by quoting the US judgment in the Pentagon Papers case, the apex court has brought Indian jurisprudence in alignment with global best practices, as far as media freedom to access and publish official documents is concerned. Praiseworthy.

The SC's concurring verdict, bolstered by the recent RTI, upholds the principle that 'public interest' overrides the executive's vested interest in keeping its decision-making process under wraps. This verdict accords well with the rights-based democratic norms & aspirations. 

The same principle of 'public interest' demands that the voting citizenry has the right to know who have invested how much in electoral bonds -- the Jaitley- manufactured bonds which have effectively legalised illicit electoral funding by tycoons. This info will likely confirm what the internal Dassault document has revealed. 

However, even if the SC eventually orders a criminal investigation into the murky Rafale deal, the prospect of arriving at truth has become remote : The 'New India' has travelled way beyond the faltering, SC-monitored SIT of Gujarat carnage-2002, & now 'Modi ki Sena' seems to stand head & shoulders above the Constitution itself.

Democracy implies openness of govt processes, policy making and implementation. Propaganda has misled middle classes, the literate, economically improved and profession pursuing public. They are unaware, worse, they care less than little, about the rights of individuals in a modern democracy state and the proneness of govts to undermine universal human and minority rights, the general provisions of the Constitution, #Equality and #Justice. They have not learnt to distinguish between rhetoric and reality; they mistake announcements as achievements. Despite good intentions and not often hard perspicacious work achievements have remained slow, much less than what is possible and needed. Now with this SC judgement, right to challenge the secretive venality of govt has been reiterated. The admirers and acolytes of govt and the ruling party have to receive a lesson or two from the SC regarding adherence to Rule Of Law and due process as a part of promoting transparency in India.

It is judges’ own choice whether they remain independent or subservient to external masters. The protection needed for the judges to remain independent are broken only by their greed or their vulnerability due to their pasts. A very good precedent is set by this judgment.