2G What Now
THE day before I was in Delhi High Court as one of the seven petitioners to challenge UPSC against the introduction of CSAT Paper this year. Our lawyers had warned against the step. They had warned us that the court may dismiss our petition with cost that may be anything up to Rs. one lakh. But we persisted. Fortunately for us, the Court directed the government as also UPSC to reply before March 14, the day for next hearing.
TODAY, a special court gave its judgement rejecting the Petition to make Mr. Chadambaram (PC) a co-accused in the 2G case. The UPA particularly is gaga with the decision and wants Mr, Subramanyam Swamy, the petitioner to be satisfied and not to pursue the matter further.
OBVIOUSLY, if the verdict had gone against PC, that would have been a great embarrassment for UPA as also a tool against it in the ongoing elections, particularly in UP. In the same wane, it can be seen as a setback for the opposition.
BUT, if we look at the issue in larger perspective, the Supreme Court yesterday exposed the fallacy of collective responsibility of the government by annulling the allocation of 122 licences. The special court, today, rejected the plea of Mr. Swamy as it did not consider the evidence placed before it enough to implicate PC.
THERE are three aspects of the case, political, ethical and legal. Politically, UPA can smile as it can attack the opposition in UP elections. Ethically, after the Supreme Court judgement, the UPA government as a whole is to blame. Constitutionally, as far as Mr. Swamy is concerned, he has had his say in all the cases he has fought but through the Supreme Court. Therefore, as the matter takes time, General Elections will come closer and it may be difficult for the UPA not only to survive in terms of government but also in terms of coalition.
TODAY, a special court gave its judgement rejecting the Petition to make Mr. Chadambaram (PC) a co-accused in the 2G case. The UPA particularly is gaga with the decision and wants Mr, Subramanyam Swamy, the petitioner to be satisfied and not to pursue the matter further.
OBVIOUSLY, if the verdict had gone against PC, that would have been a great embarrassment for UPA as also a tool against it in the ongoing elections, particularly in UP. In the same wane, it can be seen as a setback for the opposition.
BUT, if we look at the issue in larger perspective, the Supreme Court yesterday exposed the fallacy of collective responsibility of the government by annulling the allocation of 122 licences. The special court, today, rejected the plea of Mr. Swamy as it did not consider the evidence placed before it enough to implicate PC.
THERE are three aspects of the case, political, ethical and legal. Politically, UPA can smile as it can attack the opposition in UP elections. Ethically, after the Supreme Court judgement, the UPA government as a whole is to blame. Constitutionally, as far as Mr. Swamy is concerned, he has had his say in all the cases he has fought but through the Supreme Court. Therefore, as the matter takes time, General Elections will come closer and it may be difficult for the UPA not only to survive in terms of government but also in terms of coalition.
Comments
Post a Comment