None of these is reason for Indians to feel heart ache. We do not credit Pakistan much as a country any way, except for the fighting spirit of its cricket team, especially when playing against India. Its credentials as a modern nation, or as a democracy, work out to almost zero, with its status as a safe haven for the terrorists of the world earning it the tag of a rogue state. Yet we have one very solid reason to feel hurt; which is that despite all our strong credentials as the largest democracy of the world and other fancy attributes, some real and some alleged, we do not have a judiciary that is capable of delivering what the Pakistan Supreme Court has done consistently.

The Panama papers were not exclusive to Pakistan. There were more Indian references and names in the expose than those figuring from across the border; but we haven’t heard of any heads rolling here yet. In fact, some of those names continue to be as powerful, enjoying office, clout and protection. The more patriotic among us even argue that the Pakistan prime minister has been disqualified on the ground of technicalities and it is not a case of corruption, which is yet to come up for hearing at some other court. The argument is based on the fact that Sharif’s disqualification has been pronounced as the court found him failing in honesty and integrity, two attributes that are considered essential for anyone to become a member of Pakistan parliament. Sharif had told the court that he did not own any of those shell companies that were found to hold huge overseas assets on behalf of his children. He was found to be playing smart, by failing to declare that the companies were in the name of his children, playing on the technicality that he did not own anything.

Over the years, the Pakistan Supreme Court has taken a strident stand against corruption while our own judicial system has been clearly soft-pedalling on it. In a historical verdict in 2009, the Pak court had outlawed as unconstitutional an amnesty arrangement named the National Reconciliation Ordinance that prevented the persecution of the then president Asif Ali Zardari and other politicians for corruption. In another sensational case, Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani was forced out of office after the Supreme Court convicted him for contempt of court for failing to pursue a corruption case against president Zardari.

Unfortunately, the track record of our higher courts in deciding corruption cases is far from credit worthy. The cases of former Tamilnadu chief minister Jayalalitha for amassing disproportionate assets and Lalu Prasad Yadav in the fodder scam are still fresh in memory. Jayalaitha, who was accused of acquiring properties worth more than Rs 66.65 crore as well as jewellery, cash deposits, investments and a fleet of luxury cars, became the first chief minister of a state to be convicted for misusing her office and was jailed. But she came back to power after a high court overturned the conviction on the basis of certain technical calculations used to rework the size of the assets. It is a different matter that the Supreme Court reversed that verdict later, but not before she enjoyed another term of pomp and unchallenged power, which was brought to an end only by her death in mysterious circumstances and not through judicial intervention.

Lalu Prasad Yadav, convicted and later out of jail following a court order, continues to be the big daddy of Bihar politics. Flaunting his credential as the champion of secularism and opposition unity, the RJD leader had been going great guns until a series of CBI raids on the properties owned by his family in different parts of the country unearthed scandals of unmatched proportions. All this is despite the fact that he was tainted and disqualified to contest any election.

Just as In Jayalalitha’s case, corruption cases in India linger for almost a lifetime, making even conviction a mockery. The Central Vigilance Commissioner recently disclosed that as many as 300 cases related to corruption were pending for the last 20 years in 80 courts across the country. Some 3,500 cases have been pending for more than five years.

Recently, the CBI informed the Supreme Court that that despite a statutory ban on higher courts staying trial in corruption cases, some 138 cases under the prevention of corruption law have been pending for the past 15 years due to court stays. The agency said any further delay would imply loss of evidence and failure of these cases. CBI stressed that in criminal cases, particularly corruption cases, such time lapse had serious implications for producing evidence through witnesses.

Indians, including our courts, are reconciled to the idea that corruption is a typical way of life for us and is therefore something that merits address as a matter of routine. At least our courts need to get mindful of the evils of the practice and how it retards the progress of the nation and drop the bookish approach in reading the law. They must interpret corruption laws in the context of the spirit of the law and in favour of the state and the society rather than in the interests of the offenders, which they often end up doing on the pretext of saving one innocent even if a thousand guilty go scot free. The charity has to end at some point. (IPA Service)