As rightly pointed out in the Editorial, “ >Constitutional duty underlined ” (Aug. 30), the Supreme Court’s advice to the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers not to appoint those with serious criminal charges pending against them as Ministers is only a “learned dissertation.” Given the growing criminalisation of politics, it would be naive to expect our leaders to pay any heed to such well-meaning advice on constitutional morality. What is of concern is the argument often put forward by tainted politicians, that despite their alleged criminal antecedents, people vote for them — an argument to legitimise their being elected as legislators. Therefore, unless people with charges pending against them are barred from getting elected, political expediency will continue to ensure ministerial berths for them.
S.K. Choudhury,
Bangalore
I am reminded of the adage ‘operation success but patient dead.’ A case filed in 2005 for the removal of tainted persons from the Council of Ministers has now been disposed of. The issue was time-bound and the delay in deciding the case should have been avoided. The court has not delivered a judgment but has made an observation arising out of anguish, which can at best be taken as advice to the Prime Minister and the Chief Ministers. In recent years, there has been considerable expression of public opinion against persons with a criminal background entering politics and becoming Ministers. But public opinion is not listened to. Only opinions of political parties are given importance. What is needed is an amendment to the Representation of the People Act to prevent criminals from contesting elections.
S. Suryanaryanan,
Chennai
In yet another landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has laid down the Lakshman Rekha. It has recognised and respected the prerogative of the political executive in the choice of Ministers.
The ball is now in the court of the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers and top political leaders. They should seize the opportunity in a bid to cleanse politics and rid it of corrupt and criminal elements.
S.V. Venkatakrishnan,
Bangalore
The way the judgment was delivered, as an advisory and not a direction, underscores the judiciary’s sense of duty. It has sent a tacit message that if an ordinary executive is subjected to suspension the moment charges are framed against him or her, it cannot be any different for ministerial aspirants.
Chandran Dharmalingam,
Udhagamandalam
