The politics of searches, raids and vendetta cries

Whenever such raids are conducted, the reaction from the person on whom the raid conducted is, ‘It is politically motivated’, ‘It has a political intention; or most of them would say that it is a ‘political vendetta’.  The recent raids in the house of the minister and actor have also drawn such a response  from them.  

Samajwadi Party (SP) came out in strong defense of Uflex industries when countrywide income tax raids were conducted  (SP’s proximity with Ashok Chaturvedi, the chief promoter of Uflex is well known), Amar Singh called it  a political vendetta by the Congress- led Central government in March 2007. In March 2013, DMK’s Stalin said the searches in his house was due to his party’s decision to quit the UPA. He and other political leaders called the raids as political vendetta. The Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal was furious at the Union Government and the Prime Minister for misusing the CBI raid on the office of his Principal Secretary in December 2015 as a political vendetta. The CBI conducted raids at the residence of former Haryana Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda, and two others in September 2016. The former CM called it a political vendetta. In December 2016 the I-T department raided the house of the former Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu P Rama Mohana Rao and in an interview to the media, he called the raids as political vendetta. Angered by the raids conducted by the ruling BJD in Orissa in January 2017, on petrol pumps and gas agency owned by the brother of the Union Minister for Petroleum and Natural Gas, the BJP in Odisha called the raid by the State Vigilance Commis

sion as ‘intolerant’. When the I-T department raided the home of film actor Sarath Kumar a few days ago, he called it as political vendetta for pledging his support to the AIADMK Amma candidate.   

In all these searches and raids, one can see the Union Government using its power and agencies (CBI, I-T) to raid the state government minister/s and officer/s or the state government using its agencies (its intelligence and vigilance) to undertake searches and raids on their political opponents.  One expression that has been used by all against whom the raids are undertaken is ‘political vendetta’. The former President  of US Woodrow Wilson (1912-1919), well- known for his contribution to the academic discipline of Public Administration (before becoming President, he was President of the Princeton University and a great academician) advocated separation of politics and administration and it continues to play a significant role in public administration today. In all the searches and raids that are conducted throughout the country, one can see the closeness of politics and administration and not separation of politics and administration. The hype given to raids and searches are not followed up as the case progresses, it all ends with raids conducted and not about the outcome. 

This is exactly the reason why we need an independent body to investigate such cases. The Lokpal and Lokayukta Act of 2013 is an appropriate instrument to address the issue of corruption. The history of the Bill dates back to 1968 and the Lokpal Bill was presented in several forms in different years.  It was in 2011 with Anna Hazare’s movement IAC (India Against Corruption) and in the UPAII regime the bill was eventually passed in 2013, as The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, commonly known as The Lokpal Act. The Lokpal and the Lokayuktas are the bodies that deal with corruption cases.  They are supposed to conduct inquiries and investigations and conduct trials. The Lokpal will have jurisdiction over the PM with some safeguards, ministers, Members of Parliament and senior public servants are covered by this ombudsman in cases of corruption. Lokpal will have power of superintendence and direction over any investigation agency, including the CBI, for cases.  

The appointment of the Director of prosecution, transfer of officers of CBI investigating cases referred by the Lokpal with the approval of the Lokpal are some of the key features of the act. Clear timelines for preliminary enquiry, investigation and trial and the Act also provides for the establishment of special courts for this purpose. Unfortunately this mechanism is not used and many state governments are yet to establish Lokayuktas in their states.