As Opposition gropes for issues to corner PM Narendra Modi, Supreme Court doesn’t see merit in agency misuse charge.
The Budget Session of Parliament, which is tasked by the Constitution with oversight on the Consolidated Fund of India, ended with a fortnight of bedlam. The ruling party set the tone by seeking an apology for Rahul Gandhi’s pronouncements in England; Opposition harped on several issues including what they termed as “Modani”—the alleged benefits being given by the government to the Adani group. In a parallel show in the Legislative Assembly of the National Capital Territory Delhi, AAP Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal raised questions on the educational qualifications of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his party carried the campaign to extra-parliamentary fora as well. The disqualification of Rahul Gandhi after his conviction by a court in Surat added yet another dimension to Opposition’s protest. All in all, government expenditure and performance were the least discussed issue in the Budget session and bills were passed by voice vote amidst sloganeering—an ominous augury for the “Mother of Democracies” in the year being observed as Amritkaal to mark 75 years of Freedom.
Opposition united. Yet it was divided on issues. Congress mooted a no-confidence motion against Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla—it fizzled out as it could not find traction. The Congress demand for a JPC on “Modani” also did not find many takers, though sloganeering on this marred proceeding in both Houses. Opposition held a protest wearing black clothes to decry Rahul’s disqualification. On day one, it was uniformity. In later days, while some non-Congress Opposition members donned black, Congress leaders were sporting spotless white. Protest marches of united Opposition, in which some 20 “like minded” parties joined, began at the gates of Parliament House and terminated after 200 meters where barricades were put up on Vijay Chowk. Protest movements elsewhere in the world (including in our neighbouring countries) take cities and countryside by storm. Here a 200-meter walk was the longest distance traversed by the united Opposition. Lack of organisational wherewithal was in display in all its grandeur.
As the Budget session ended, the tallest of all non-Congress, non-BJP Opposition leaders, NCP’s Sharad Pawar, who has 56 years of legislative experience, chose to air his reservations on a TV channel. Regretting the washout of the Budget session he recalled that earlier, during UPA too, the 2G issue (which later could not withstand judicial scrutiny) had held up an entire session of Parliament. He differed with his ally, Congress and other parties on the demand for a JPC on “Modani”. Stating that he himself had headed a JPC on Coca-Cola matter a decade and a half back, the seasoned parliamentarian underscored the inefficacy of probe by JPC. He preferred judicial scrutiny and said that as the Supreme Court has set up a panel of domain experts headed by a retired judge to look into the brouhaha caused by the Hindenburg report.
Pawar made it clear that he did not agree with Rahul Gandhi’s “Adani-Ambani” style of targeting big business houses and said it was akin to the “Tata-Birla” narrative of the past. (This was the narrative of India in the pre-1991 days when Reform had not been rolled out.) Pawar said whenever Tata-Birla were attacked, the target used to be the government. “Today the name of Tata-Birla is not at the forefront, different Tata-Birlas have come before the government. So these days if you have to attack the government the names of Ambani and Adani are taken. The question is, that the people you are targeting, if they have done something wrong, misused their powers, and then in a democracy you have the right to speak against them. But I cannot understand the motive of attack without any meaningful charge. Ambani has contributed in the petrochemical sector; does the country not need it? In the field of electricity, Adani has contributed. Does the country not need electricity? These are people who take up such responsibility and work in the name of the country. If they have done wrong, you attack. But if they have created this infrastructure, to criticise them I don’t feel is right.”
On Opposition unity, Pawar said that non-Congress parties want to keep Congress out but the fact that the GOP still has its footprint in several states cannot be papered over. He lamented that a common programme-based agenda was yet to emerge from the Opposition and said that to be successful an alternate agenda, reflecting the aspirations of the common people, needs to be projected. “There can be different viewpoints and criticism and one has the right to speak strongly against the policies of the government, but a discussion should take place—discussion and dialogue is important in a democracy—if discussion and dialogue is ignored the system will be endangered, it may even perish.”
While Parliament was stalled and Opposition was marching 200 meters in protest, on the penultimate day of the Budget session the Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea by 14 parties that probe agencies like the CBI and ED were being used for “selective and targeted” probes against them. Distinguished counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, a Congress MP, who was arguing o behalf of the petitioners, chose to withdraw the plea. Saying that there cannot be separate guidelines for politicians, “who stand absolutely on the same standing as the citizens of the country”, the Supreme Court also turned down the plea that skewed application of the law has led to an uneven playing field and shrunk the space for dialogue. Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observed, “When you say that the space for Opposition has shrunk, the remedy is in that space, the political space. Not court.”
The Opposition’s charge against the Modi government is akin to the story of the seven blind men and the elephant. In the run-up to 2024, it is axiomatic that effort shall be made to dislodge the party in power. But as Chief Justice Chandrachud has said, the battle has to be fought in the realm of political space. Not in courts or through obfuscations and innuendo. Pawar is right. A common alternative programme can bind the opposition, not merely hatred for the persona of Narendra Modi.