SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA
ARCHIVES

Ashok Mitra

Where some people seem to be extra-special

With all its foibles and imperfections, a legal framework sustains the democratic polity described as India. Institutions and personages explicitly referred to in the country's Constitution, and procedures, spelled out through states, such institutions and personages are expected to follow, give flesh and blood to this democracy.

Much research has been expended to discover whether research has been expended to discover whether the Constitution the Indians gave unto themselves reflects the teachings and ideals of Mahatma Gandhi, the acclaimed Father of the Nation. Perhaps it does, perhaps it does not. On one point there is no scope of doubt though: the Constitution does not accord formal recognition to Mahatma Gandhi as a national icon. Nor have any of his direct descendants been by virtue of their lineage, beneficiaries of differential treatment, sanctified by law, from State agencies.

Against this background, do we not have cause to be bemused at the extraordinary nature of official facilities accorded to the widow of a particular former prime minister and to other members of here household? This former prime minister met a tragic, gory death some years ago. The widow and her family have every right to expect that some special considerations be shown to them by the State on account of the grisly manner her husband met his end. A legislation detailing arrangements for providing security to members of the household of former prime ministers had, in fact, been already enacted in 1986.

This act was amended in 1995 to ensure that arrangements spelled out by it continue to be accorded to the parties concerned for a period of ten years. The purpose of the amendment, it was more than obvious, was to take care of the security of the family members of the former prime minister who have been occupants of the official premises at 10 Janpath, New Delhi. The statute is couched in general terms, laying down ground rules of security for members of the family of all past prime minister. In reality, though, the central purpose was to strengthen the security arrangements for the household at the Janpath address alone.

So there it is. India remains a democratic republic, with Article 14 of the Constitution stressing equality before the law for all citizens, this particular family, it has been decided, is moral equal than others. In terms of the 1986 SPG Act as amended in 1995, not just the widow of a deceased prime minister, his daughter and her husband too are entitled to special security arrangements.

Such has been the interpretation of the law: On their entering into wedlock the Special Protection Group assigned to look after their security took the initiative to ensure that a government bungalow, duly renovated, was made available to the young lady and her spouse. The SPG has thus emerged as the ultimate decision-maker with respect to what kind of security, and how much of it, are to be offered to former prime ministers and their families.

This arrangement has evoked murmurs of uneasiness of late. The provisions in the statue, which in effect delegates immense discretionary powers to a police contingent, some have suggested, deserve a closer security. A series of questions have been raised in this connection. For example, is the 'threat perception' decided upon by the SPG in regard to members of households of former prime ministers beyond the pale of judicial review? Are the privileges mentioned in the statue made uniformly available by the SPG to the kith and kin of all former prime ministers? Does any scope exist for so annotating the legislation as to suggest that, never mind even if the strength of the progeny of a former prime minister reaches a few hundreds, each of them is entitled to protection as per the schedule of threat perception worked out by the Special Protection Group?

The SPG has without doubt come to enjoy extraordinary powers. According to one point of view the nation's Parliament has transferred to it a major area of responsibility that should legitimately belong to elsewhere. A certain arbitrariness must have coloured the SPG's judgement. The threat perception for members of the household of one former prime minister, it may decide, belongs to the 'first category'; for households of other former prime ministers, the perceived threat could be downgraded to 'third' or 'fourth' categories with very title objective analysis. The discretion lies entirely with the SPG; the manner in which this discretion has been utilised has had significant spin-offs over the year.

Little, very little, it may be suggested, can be done about this procedural norm: the task of enforcing a given legislation is the onus of the administration. Since the deployment of discretionary powers by the SPG virtually amounts to the exercise of a political judgement, a review of not just the procedure followed but of the contents of the SPG Act itself, it will conceivably be suggested, is called for.

A story making the rounds has it that the young lady, who has been accommodated in a government bungalow following her marriage, had proceeded to New York on a shopping expedition; she chose to travel the London-New York sector of the journey by Concorde; therefore the members of the Special Protection Group accompanying her had also to travel by Concorde, which presumably costs double or triple the normal air fare. To obviate criticism, should not the statute be amended to specify the kinds of expenditure that are to be permitted and that are to be not, while guarding of the families of former prime ministers?

A distasteful chore, it is nonetheless essential also to refer to a matter which concerns the young lady's mother, that is, the widow of the former prime minister. A re-scheduling of the official order of precedence for formal occasions has seemingly taken place in consequence of the security arrangements decided for her by the SPG. If a meeting of the nation's eminencies is convened in the Central Hall of Parliament, she is found to occupy one of the forward seats. When a swearing-in of a claque of Cabinet ministers takes place in the Asoka Hall of Rashtrapati Bhavan, she is again occupying a foremost position among the seated invited audience.

Of the dignitaries who flew in to attend the funeral of Mother Teresa, only the President accompanied by his wife, the prime minister accompanied by his wife, and this lady, widow of the former prime minister, stayed overnight in the Raj Bhavan at Calcutta. It is a grey area and it is a matter of debate whether even the state governor, the formal occupant of the Raj Bhavan, is entitled to take a decision that is in breach of standing protocol. On the presumption that he can, the uncomfortable question cannot still be avoided: should the nation accept without demur the phenomenon of this lady being invested with a status equal to that of the head of State or the head of government?

It will perhaps be explained at this juncture that security arrangements for the lady are at the behest of the SPG who insist that, for security reasons, she occupies the foremost slot in the public ceremonies she attends. In case this is so, it is truly a remarkable development. Courtesy the Special Protection Group, the lady has emerged as one of the nation's eminence grise, and to question her credentials is nothing short of lese majeste.

The matter cannot, however, be allowed to rest here. The people of this country have a right to know whether the Special Protection Group ought to have the prerogative to elevate this lady to the status she is now taking for granted for herself. If the circumstances have been brought about by the provisions of the SPG Act, the time has certainly arrived to take a second look at its contents.

Why be bashful, this need to take a second look at the SPG statue would conceivably not have arisen had the Central Bureau of Investigation not chosen to accord kidglove treatment to the famous Italian citizen, Ottavio Quattracchi, adjudged by the highest judiciary in Switzerland as one of the beneficiaries of the Bofors bribes. The proximity of this individual to the household occupying 10, Janpath is well known, and a public demand could soon rear its head that, since the CBI failed to interrogate Quattracchi, it should at least interrogate his very close friend, the lady at 10 Janpath.

The case for examining her in connection with the Bofors scandal has been strengthened by the disclosures made by the chief of the armed services during the period concerned. The SPG should have no business to intervene and say that, for security reasons, she cannot be interrogated.

The necessity to amend the SPG Act would also become imperative once the Supreme Court gives its verdict on whether ministers and other parliamentarians are outside the orbit of law even if they commit offences under the Civil and Criminal Procedure Codes. It would be the height of absurdity if special protection under the SPG Act continues for former prime ministers hauled up before the courts for criminal misconduct of the vilest kind.

Ashok Mitra