Executive Merely Implementing Whatever Is Dictated By Party In Power, Political Parties Have Carefully Manipulated System: Madras High Court
While criticising the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption for ordering a fresh inquiry against the former CM Edapaddi Palaniswami, the Madras High Court said that even almost 73 years since the Constitution of India started governing this country, the "harsh reality" is that the Executive has almost lost its independence and it has virtually turned into an organ "merely executing...
While criticising the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption for ordering a fresh inquiry against the former CM Edapaddi Palaniswami, the Madras High Court said that even almost 73 years since the Constitution of India started governing this country, the "harsh reality" is that the Executive has almost lost its independence and it has virtually turned into an organ "merely executing whatever is said/dictated/ordered by the political party, which is in power during the relevant point of time."
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh said that over a period of time, the political parties have carefully manipulated the system to such an extent that they have complete control over the Executive.
"Every time when there is a change in guard, the entire Executive set up also changes to ensure that organ toes the dictates of the government in power. Therefore, in reality, the separation of power that is in the hands of the Executive is almost non-existent," observed the court, as it held that fresh inquiry against Palaniswami had been ordered only due to change of government in the state.
The court said it is "lamenting on this sad state of affairs" as DVAC had conducted a detailed inquiry and found that a prima facie case had not been made out against Palaniswami and therefore, a conscious decision was taken to close the complaint.
"The question is as to what really made the first respondent to completely take a 360 degree turn and ask the Government in the year 2023 regarding the action to be taken against the second respondent on the closure report that was already submitted. Did the first respondent become wiser within a span of 5 years or did the first respondent stumble upon any other new material, which will have a bearing on the closure report? The answer is a resounding 'no' and the only reason that can be gathered from the materials placed before this Court is that there was a change in the power dynamics and that is the only reason as to why the first respondent wants to disregard the earlier inquiry report and commences a fresh inquiry," it added.
The court observed that these instances keep happening as and when there is a change in guard and ultimately, the case reaches the court.
"In cases of this nature, the Court is like a playground where the ruling and opposition party try to score a point for their own political games," said the bench.
It added: "Ultimately, the order passed by the Court will only become a subject matter of a talk show in the television channels, which will be discussed with a lot of hue and cry where the participants will scream at the top of their voice supporting one party or the other and ultimately, it will all get consigned to nothing."
The bench said the time that is spent by the Courts on these issues virtually eats the judicial time, "which has to be spent purposefully for a poor litigant, who is waiting for years together with a fond hope that his case will be taken up at the earliest and that there will be some light at the end of the tunnel."
"This court expressed its anguish on the complete loss of independent functioning by the Executive and this is one such appropriate case where this Court deemed it fit to put forth the naked reality that has actually set into the system contrary to what the makers of the Constitution had in their mind when they gave us this Constitution."
Justice Venkatesh also said many a time, truth is harsh and may even sound rude. "But, truth has to be said and it cannot be swept under the carpet just because it will cause embarrassment or inconvenience," the judge said, adding that the founding fathers of the Constitution expected the three limbs of the Constitution namely Legislature, Executive and Judiciary to function independently in their sphere and to act as a check and balance over the other.
Case Title: RS Bharathi v. The Director of Vigilancce and Anti Corruption and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 200
Click Here To Read Order/Judgment