Arrest of Mr Chidambaram
I read The Editorial “ONLY DUE PROCESS (IE, August 22) on Mr. Chidambaram’s arrest with great interest, but felt it did not measure up to the newspaper’s usually high standard.
There can be no two opinions about what is mentioned in the sub heading: “Case against P Chidambaram must proceed strictly according to the law, and must be seen to do so too.” The general tenor of your reasoning as well as the specific points raised in the editorial seem to suggest this is not being done, but how due process has been violated in the case has not been explained.
The first point raised in the article is that though the prosecution considers it a case of money laundering of “monumental magnitude”; yet the scenes that led up to arrest on 21st evening at Mr Chidambaram’s residence were “ unseemly and unprecedented.” This attempt to link the magnitude of money laundering with the scenes witnessed that evening is not clear.
Even if the scenes were unseemly, they were not unprecedented. One example of a more unbecoming incident that immediately comes to mind is when the Chennai police at midnight on June 30, 2001 dragged the four time Chief Minister of Tamilnadu Mr Karunanidhi out of bed, beat him up before arresting him in a corruption case. The scene of an old man and a former Chief Minister being dragged screaming, crying and kicking had shocked the nation. Nothing like that happened in Mr Chidambaram’s case.
If incidents of that evening became ungainly, how can the CBI be held responsible for that? If the CBI had to scale the walls, they were forced to do so. The editorial completely overlooks the behaviour of Mr Chidambaram, who, instead of voluntarily surrendering to the law and thereby obviating the need for any indecorous incident to occur, shut the door of his residence to prevent the entry of the CBI team. According to the Cr P C, If an accused forcibly resists the endeavour to arrest him, or attempts to evade the arrest, the police are authorised to “use all means necessary to effect the arrest.” Whatever pre arrest “drama” occurred that day, the means used by the CBI to arrest were quite benign and legal. Yet, the editorial tries to “raise serious questions about the CBI’s conduct.” The question raised in the editorial is: what was the need for “high drama” when the CBI was not dealing with a “declared offender” or a “heinous crime”? Mr Chidambaram may not have been declared a proclaimed offender, but that he was evading arrest can not be denied. Mr Chidambaram’s behaviour from the time anticipatory bail was denied to him clearly showed that he was trying to evade arrest. He remained untraceable for 28 hours and avoided facing the CBI. He is accused of an economic offence, which sometimes causes greater harm to the society than a heinous crime.
It was not merely the prosecution that called it a money laundering case of “monumental magnitude.” The Delhi High Court called him a “kingpin, that is the key conspirator” in a “classic case of money laundering”. Later, the CBI court, while sending the Congress leader to CBI custody till 26th August also said: “Allegations against Chidambaram are serious in nature and in-depth investigation is required.” Even the apex court did not intervene in the CBI case.
The editorial refers to the Congress allegation that action against Chidambaram was a “show of political vendetta” Every time the CBI has acted against a prominent politician from the opposition, it has invariably been followed by a chorus of noises against the government. The idea is not so much to attack the CBI as to declare the government as the guilty party, thereby simultaneously proclaiming oneself to be the innocent victim of vendetta politics. This happened in the UPA days and it is happening now. The question is, why has this type of response become a standard practice, and how does it impact the image of the premier investigating agency of the country? No accused in a criminal case ordinarily admits to his or her involvement in the crime. They all claim to be innocent. Therefore, the public should treat such statements as the wild rants of distressed politicians, but it does not always work that way. Over a period of time, the CBI’s image has been dented, partly due to its own performance and partly due to the repeated, standard response that the investigating agency's action in such cases is motivated by political considerations. It gives rise to a perception that the CBI, like police forces in the country, is influenced in its work by the party in power. Crooked politicians take advantage of this public perception. Even in cases where the action taken against them is perfectly legitimate and as per the law, they invariably pose as victims of political vendetta and witch-hunting.
The editorial criticises justice Gaur’s recommendation on bail by saying it is a “fundamental right” of citizens to be released on bail. While bail and not jail is a principle that is followed by the judiciary in this country, to call it a fundamental right is somewhat of an exaggeration.
There is a feeling in the country that the rich and powerful people succeed in getting away with their misdeeds and the criminal justice system generally fails to make them accountable. This editorial would only help in perpetuating that public perception.
