Never Rode & Never Fell

“If Thomas is corrupt, (I don’t want to defend him, let justice system decide) is there something wrong with what defines corruption in India. I can be wrong ….what do you think?” My friend Antony wrote to me.

I had read the news items regarding the controversy relating to appointment of Mr PJ Thomas as the Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC). With the cursory reading of the news items I was under the impression that he could be one of the corrupt officers who had managed to slime his way to the prestigious post. I was taken aback by Antony’s mail.

I asked around. I talked to his college mates, his colleagues in the IAS and his family friends who knew him as a person. Everybody told me that he is a man of high integrity and a brilliant officer. I read the Supreme Court Judgment relating to the writ petition as to the legality of his appointment. This judgment was only about the legality of the appointment and does not in any way take a view on the merit of the Palmolein case which is pending in the court of Special Judge. As to what I have understood from my talks with the various people who are of the know of this case, though he got embroiled in this case when he was the secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supplies of Kerala State when the Palmolein controversy erupted, he may not have been beneficiary or may not have consciously abetted the controversial decision.

This questionable import of Palmolein took place in 1991. Subsequently in the last 20 years, this matter has been tossed around in legal and procedural wrangles without any decision. Instead of undertaking thorough investigation as to who erred in his judgment, or who was negligent or who was corrupt to fix responsibility and take necessary action, this case had become a political tool in the fight between two political parties and their leaders dragging the career of a few officers for few decades.

I am sure that it is this conviction that Mr Thomas is an honorable and capable person to take the role of CVC that prompted the Prime Minister and Home Minister to recommend his name for this post and not because they thought they have a pliable officer who would play by their tune.

I am not qualified to comment on the merit of the case. But in my mind, this case is a classic example of the perverse incentive that influences the decision making process of our bureaucracy. As Mr Thomas has observed in his petition “it is routine for officers in the discharge of their duties to have cases slapped against them, many of which are trumped up or politically motivated. In an environment where a bureaucrat bears the brunt of protests against governmental action, it is necessary that an objective view be taken of how officers function.”

Instead of taking such objective assessment of the process followed in decision making, if we find fault with the outcome of the decision with the benefit of hindsight, and we allow such matters enmeshed in legal wrangles without any conclusion for decades, we have a serious problem. Honest and good officers get penalized and tainted for their life for having taken a judgment call. This worry and concern often act as a deterrent to take a bold stand or to interpret the laws and procedures for the right cause without any private agenda. On the other hand the unscrupulous officers realize that the legal processes may get dragged for years without any result and in the meantime they can maximize their private interests and that of their political mentors.

If we don’t find ways to protect and support good officers we have no moral right to complain about the inaction of the bureaucrat. Take it or leave it …!

It is the spirit and not the form of law that keeps justice alive. Earl Warren