Media and Corruption -EPW- http://www.epw.org.in/epw/uploads/articles/15890.pdf

http://www.epw.org.in/epw/uploads/articles/15890.pdf
(Available free for a week, after which registration required)

http://beta.epw.in/newsItem/comment/189694/

Media and Corruption

Sabareesh Gopala Pillai

Vol XLVI No.13 March 26, 2011

LE

The media, which is referred to as the fourth estate, is the central pillar of modern civil society – external and independent of the state. It is supposed to be the principal agent of public vigilance. Therefore, it is imperative that the media in a democracy remains free of commercial interests and autonomous vis-à-vis the state. But, unfortunately we witnessed prominent media personalities acting as ­intermediaries between the state and commercial interests, moulding public opinion through manipulation and control. More­over, the corporate media itself was involved in the cover-up which raises serious questions about its credibility. It was another form of “paid news” and it was only due to alternate media like blogs and twitter that these issues remained in the spotlight.
However, there is a larger process operating in the Indian media that is making it more corrupt and devoid of ethics and values. Media in India is becoming more “hyper-real”, in the sense that Jean Baudrillard used it to mean that there is no longer a “reality” that television allows us to see. ­Indian news television constructs a new ­reality which is different from the ground reality and this new reality is considered as ­ultimate and true by the people who view it. Duplicity becomes part of corporate ­media culture and hypocrisy is embedded in the character of the public personality.
Television constructs a new reality on the basis of which public opinion is formed. This becomes a direct threat to democracy because the public figure is no longer motivated to be genuinely responsive to the codes of ethics and justice but is more concerned about maintaining his “media image”. The political leader may not do constructive work but project an image through the media that he is working for the people. Justice may not be done but it just needs to be shown through the media that it is done. Politics and public life become a form of constructed symbolism and media becomes the carrier of these drafted symbols. Henceforth, the success or failure of a political leader, the capitalist and the media personality, lies not in maintaining ethics and integrity but in making sure that impropriety is not exposed in the public domain. The grand cover-up during “Radiagate” by the mainstream media was part of such an attempt, which was, thankfully, thwarted due to the responsible journalism of some prominent editors and the alternate media.
Before the liberalisation era in India, the bureaucratic apparatus was considered to be the villain of the piece, an abode of corruption and inefficiency. Capitalism is much more dangerous since it is based on the philosophy of dissatisfaction. Only when one is dissatisfied, there emerges the need for more consumption, which leads to further growth and revenues. A person becomes corrupt because of this under­lying state of dissatisfaction. Such corruption is more deep-rooted but it is camouflaged to appear just and fair. Corrupt media in a capitalist society is a fallout of the larger process of consumerism.
Sabareesh Gopala Pillai
University of Kerala
Thiruvananthapuram

In defence of MPLAD Scheme - www.mylaw.net

In defense of MP-LAD Scheme

Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee announced recently that the corpus available to Members of Parliament (“MPs”) under the Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (“the MPLAD Scheme”) would be increased to Rupees Five crores a year from the existing Rupees Two crore limit. The hike, effective from April 1, 2011, will result in an additional expenditure of Rupees 2,370 crores a year. This decision overruled the Planning Commission’s, which was not in favour of an increase in the corpus amount; even the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (“the CAG”) had described the MPLAD Scheme as one of the most irregular and corrupt practices in our democracy as the money is misused by MPs to receive patronage and achieve vested political interests. Various bodies, such as the Second Administrative Reforms Commission and the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, had also recommended the abolition of the MPLAD Scheme.

Professor Bhim Singh, the Chairman of the National Panthers Party has been relentless in his opposition to the MPLAD Scheme. A Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India headed by the then Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan had dismissed Professor Singh’s writ petition - where Senior Advocate K.K.Venugopal had argued for Professor Singh - challenging the MPLAD scheme as a fraud on the Constitution. Professor Singh described the recent hike of the corpus amount as “highway robbery” from the state exchequer by lawmakers and has decided to file a curative writ petition in the Supreme Court.

The legal and technical opposition to the MPLAD Scheme and the Member of Legislative Assembly Local Area Development Scheme arises from the perceived violation of two fundamental provisions of constitutionalism. First, it violates the principle of separation of powers between the legislature and the executive. Second, it is considered a direct interference with the ideology and spirit of federalism as it bypasses state and local bodies in executing schemes and projects.

The necessity, however, of such a scheme in a multi-party democracy like India needs to be understood. Firstly, the original intent of the scheme - as the then Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao described it - was to usher in development in constituencies of MPs elected from Opposition parties. It was the recognition of the reality that in an emerging parliamentary democracy like India, the ruling government usually implements schemes only in constituencies represented by the parties in power. There appears to be a general feeling among ruling parties that they can afford to neglect the needs of areas where they have been defeated. The MPLAD Scheme emerged as a practical solution to this problem of neglect and underdevelopment in areas ruled by the Opposition MPs. Secondly, it provides a pragmatic answer to the question of how an independent MP, not affiliated to any political party, can contribute directly to the welfare of his constituency. The success or failure of an MP (or a Member of Legislative Assembly) in an election largely tends to depend on how he directly nurtures his Constituency, and hence, he should be given due opportunity to do so.

Moreover, as the Supreme Court has rightly pointed out, the constitutional principles of federalism and separation of powers do not require rigid adherence. There are numerous provisions in the Constitution that showcase its unitary character such as a unified Judiciary, the procedure for creation or abolition of states (Article 3), and the provisions for declaration of an Emergency. The Indian Constitution has been described as unitary in spirit and federal in character. Even separation of powers is not followed rigidly and judicial activism stands as an example par excellence. When the judiciary finds that both the legislature and the executive are insensitive to the needs of the people, it intervenes. The MPLAD Scheme should be seen as the result of the government’s similar insensitivity to provide balanced regional development.

Furthermore, it would be incorrect to say that local bodies have been subordinated merely because the elected MPs too have the authority to recommend works of a developmental nature. Authority is given only to recommend works and it does not defy the ‘unity of command’ principle with respect to district administration. Nor does it, in any way, deprive the local bodies from providing ‘development’ to its citizens either. In fact, the MPLAD Scheme provides the much-needed advantages of ‘public choice’ without entering into the private domain. For instance, if the elected local body is not functioning properly and not fulfilling an immediate requirement of the community, such as building a waste treatment plant for an urban area, then people can persuade the MP to provide finance from the MPLAD Scheme and build a plant for them. This also has the possibility of eliminating monopoly in public service delivery, and therefore, will bring in the much needed efficiency and effectiveness in local governance.

However, accountability for MPLAD Scheme should be guaranteed. The fourth report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission, titled “Ethics in Governance”, recommends the abolition of the MPLAD Scheme owing to the inability to maintain accountability. It is indeed true that in some areas it has become a source of corruption and a system of patronage. However, reported misuse of a scheme does not mean that the scheme itself needs to be abolished. Proper accountability for the use of public money has to be ensured through a system of checks and balances; separate institutional machinery can be put in place for this.

Indian democracy is still evolving and ‘universal’ principles such as separation of powers cannot be applied without taking the context and consequences of implementation of these principles into account. Upholding laws and principles should not be treated as an end in itself. They constitute the necessary means to provide justice and fairness in society. If they do not pave the way for provision of the expected ends, they will appear meaningless. The Constitution inherently provides a minimal degree of flexibility in the application of such principles, which has been appropriately interpreted by the Supreme Court in the MPLAD Scheme case.

Administrative Reforms Commissions' Chairman, Mr. Veerappa Moily, presenting its Fourth Report on 'Ethics in Governance' to the Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, in New Delhi, on February 12, 2007. The Report recommends the abolition of the MPLAD Scheme owing to the inability to maintain accountability.

Image above and on article thumbnail from the Press Information Bureau.

The Report of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution is available here.

The Second Administrative Reforms Commission’s report, titled 'Ethics in Governance', is available here.

You can read the Supreme Court’s decision in Bhim Singh v. Union of India on Indiankanoon.org here.

The Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation’s Guidelines on Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme is available here.

Sabareesh Gopala Pillai is a Research Scholar with the University of Kerala.

"An honest man appointed by a dishonest government." Finally, a blessing in disguise.

My article on - The case of P.J.Thomas and the CVC controversy- Myths, misconceptions and the truth. Article published in http://www.mylaw.net/ available on the Front Page on 6-3-2011. Must read for a civil servant/ CS aspirant/ Student of public administration/public law.

An honest man appointed by a dishonest government
Lounge,Courts
Sabareesh Gopala Pillai

The Supreme Court verdict quashing the appointment of Mr. P.J. Thomas as the Chief Vigilance Commissioner (“the CVC”) sets the right precedent that only a person of impeccable integrity, who does not carry a shadow of suspicion irrespective of his personal integrity, should occupy the chair of the CVC in India. Moreover, the High Powered Committee (“the HPC”) constituted to appoint people to such constitutionally ordained positions, should exercise their duties responsibly by considering all relevant material, and even though a consensus may not be necessary, the majority principle cannot be strictly applied to surpass the legality of the decision-making process.

The mainstream media, however, showed a tendency to portray Mr. Thomas as a tainted civil servant. This is flawed since the verdict does not mean that Mr. Thomas is guilty in any way. The Supreme Court wanted the office of the CVC to be beyond suspicion, and did not cast any aspersions on his personal integrity. The three-member Bench commented that they did not wish to make any observations on the pending Palmolein Import case, in which Mr. Thomas is an accused. It was, in fact, the illegality of the decision making process that compelled the Court to hold that his appointment did not exist in the eyes of law. It was the HPC that had failed to consider relevant material - there were no references to prior notes of the Department of Personnel and Training, which had observed that penalty proceedings may be initiated against Mr. Thomas in the Palmolein Import case. Rather than Mr. Thomas, it is the Government that is indicted here for arbitrariness.

Amidst the growing spectrum of scams, this is a direct blow to the Prime Minister who, as de-facto head of the HPC, not only failed to appoint the right candidate but also lowered the dignity of the office of the CVC and was reckless with the reputation of a civil servant. He cannot blame it on the compulsions of coalition politics this time.

The President Pratibha Devisingh Patil administering the oath to Mr. P.J. Thomas as the new Central Vigilance Commissioner, in New Delhi on September 7, 2010.
Image above and on article thumbnail from Press Information Bureau.

Mr. Thomas has an impeccable record of public service except for the fact that his signature happens to be on a file forced on him by his political bosses. An I.A.S. officer of the 1973 batch of the Kerala cadre, Mr. Thomas was listed as the eighth accused in the Palmolein Import case. This case relates to alleged corruption in the import of 1,500 tons of palm oil from Malaysia through a Singapore-based firm in 1992, when Mr. K. Karunakaran, the late Congress stalwart, was the Chief Minister. Mr. Karunakaran was listed as the first accused in the case, and the then Food Minister T.H. Mustafa, the second accused. The case, which is still pending in a Special Court in Thiruvananthapuram, had been registered after a Vigilance Department probe established the Comptroller and Auditor General’s preliminary finding that the state exchequer had suffered losses of around Rupees Two crores, as the deal had been cleared without an appropriate bidding process. Mr. Thomas was made an accused in the case as he held the office of Food Secretary at that time, and was also a Director of the State Civil Supplies Corporation, and was charged with criminal conspiracy. He had implemented a decision of the Karunakaran Cabinet that was then endorsed by his bureaucratic colleagues above and below him, to import 15,000 tons of palm oil at a rate of U.S. Dollars 405 per ton whereas the market price was U.S. Dollars 392.25 per ton.

This story of Mr. P.J. Thomas shows the limitations of civil service activism, especially for officials who occupy top positions, such as the Secretary, and need to sign documents on behalf of the Government but are not involved in the day-to-day operations of its agencies, such as the State Civil Supplies Corporation in this case.

His civil service colleagues have repeatedly asserted that he was an officer of ‘impeccable integrity and honesty’ and a ‘victim of political circumstances, and deeply flawed and motivated investigative processes’. A statement issued recently by the Kerala I.A.S. Officers Association, signed by Industries Secretary T. Balakrishnan, said Mr. Thomas was a victim of delayed judicial process. The fact that the present Left Democratic Front (“LDF”) Government promoted him as Chief Secretary, regardless that it was same establishment that had pursued the palmolein scam legally, has also been cited. Mr. Thomas was also an excellent Chief Electoral Officer, who worked under the then Chief Election Commissioner J.M. Lyngdoh, who was ironically a petitioner before the Supreme Court. Mr. Lyngdoh has since certified that Mr. Thomas is an excellent officer, and asserted that the verdict is an indictment of the Prime Minister and the Home Minister, and not Mr. Thomas. Further, Mr. Thomas was one of the few Managing Directors of the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Limited, considered to be one of the most corrupt companies in Kerala for a variety of reasons, who managed the organisation efficiently and with integrity.


The media has also reported that Mr. P.J. Thomas strongly resisted every attempt by the Government to make him tender his resignation after the appointment had been made. There was also intense pressure on him from sections of the media to do so. An upright officer, especially a CVC, should be guided only by the rule of law and not fear, favour, or the influence of anyone. Had he resigned earlier, such a historic verdict may not have been delivered; credit is due to him for not being influenced by the media, the Government, and even popular opinion.

Former Cabinet Secretary T.S.R. Subramanium has remarked that when there is a strong institutional mechanism to assess the service record of bureaucrats, systemic failure is almost impossible, and the chances of malice are high. Perhaps the government wrongly presumed that Mr. Thomas would be the ideal ‘yes man’. By not rendering his resignation at the first instance of scrutiny by the Supreme Court or at the behest of back channel efforts by the Government, he proved that he was no stooge to the dishonest Government. He walked the path of a true public servant, and sacrificed his reputation in the process. As an experienced civil servant, he must have predicted the verdict of the Supreme Court, but he refused to budge and wished only the supreme guardian of the Constitution to deliver a judgment - not on him, but on the appointment to an institution that is the primary watchdog of bureaucratic corruption. No government can now be casual or arbitrary with such appointments. An honest man appointed by a dishonest government turned out to be a blessing in disguise for the country.



Sabareesh Gopala Pillai is a Research Scholar with the University of Kerala.