Judges to declare assets, cricketers still 'divine'

Home > India > Article

Judges have relented from their 12-year-long adamancy about keeping info on their wealth restricted to themselves. Indian cricket gods still insist on their own dope test agency and not WADA, like every other sportpersons.

CJ: Natteri Adigal

Thu, Aug 27, 2009 18:10:03 IST

Views:
0
Comments:
0

Rate:

5.0 / 1 votes

India News :

CHIEF JUSTICE of India KG Balakrishnan has reportedly relented from his stand about disclosure of judges’ wealth. He has been insisting that finances of high courts and Supreme Court judges were sacrosanct information that should not be in public domain. All the details of the assets would shortly be published on the Supreme Court website, it was announced. Former Attorney General of India Soli Sorabjee welcomed the decision, calling it 'a radical change'. He said, “This is a very good development… better late than never. This move raises the image of the judiciary.” It has been 12 years late!

The original resolution was approved in a full court meeting attended by 22 Supreme Court judges in May 1997. Ex-CJI JS Verma had initiated the process.

When Moily moved Judges (Declaration of Assets and Liabilities) Bill, 2009, it contained a shocker clause. They would declare their assets, but this declaration would not be in public domain but only to a 'competent authority'— the President, the CJI or high court CJs, according to Clause VI of the Bill. If passed, it would have ensured that judges too were equal to any other citizen but a little 'more equal' than others. Then, two high court judges, Shylendra Kumar of Karnataka and Kannan of Punjab and Haryana proved likewise and defied their learned counsel and made their assets public.

They all proved that honesty in public life has not become extinct in 62 years of make-believe democracy. Justice Kumar went public to declare that the CJI does not have the authority to speak on behalf of the entire judiciary on the issue of transparency. Balakrishnan called him 'publicity crazy' and reiterated his opposition for transparency: “Every high court judge has got the freedom to declare assets (voluntarily). No problem on this.”

Vested interests such as lawyers and mercenary journalists have been projecting India’s ‘independent judiciary’ as the last beacon of hope for the citizens. The judiciary too has been insisting on this divine status as its right, advertising it as the basic requirement for ‘sovereignty’. After all, unlike elected representatives who make law that may be biased to help their particular constituency, their Lordships are supposed to be impartial arbiters of the law.

Another tribe of patriots taking pride of the country’s avowed self respect or sovereignty – to not bow to global trends in ethics – are cricket fans and their arrogant heroes. Cricket gods too insist on being treated differently from other sportsmen. The rabidly belligerent tycoons controlling the game raking multi-millions have the reputation of arm-twisting international bodies supposed to ensure civilised norms. They spent a fortune on a legal eagle to back an arrogant player Harbhajan and kicked up a huge nationalist furore among couch potatoes. The cricket control board Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) persuaded the authorities that he had not uttered racist term ‘monkey’ at a player of aboriginal origin; that he only used a Hindi expletive “tere maa ki . . .” It was projected that Indians do not get offended by the insinuation! BCCI now think that its stars are so supremely divine that they should not be dope-tested like ordinary mortals. It is all set to browbeat the international body International Cricket Council (ICC) into walking out of the umbrella of World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) and develop a cricket-specific anti-doping code.

Indian cricketers have raised concerns that WADA code's 'whereabouts' clause will require them to divulge information that could violate privacy and threaten their security. These ‘chosen one’ have echoed the judiciary that thinks that any transparency with judges’ asset could erode their independence. BCCI wants to trash the sane counsel of sports minister MS Gill. Indian cricket’s leading light Yuvraj Singh believes staunchly in the exalted status of his ilk. Yuvraj has come out strongly against critics who condemn the lobbying by the players with BCCI to not succumb to pressure from ICC. He thinks that cricket gods stand one notch above all other professionals, including sportsmen playing 'inferior' games such as tennis or soccer. Yuvi categorically told the news channel CNN-IBN: “Their sports and our sport are different . . . We play more and we get very little time with our families and I feel we are travelling more. We are playing a lot of time in an year and we should be given more space, with due respect to other sports!”

The extensive travelling, Yuvraj said, gave India's cricketers too few days to spend at home each year. He claimed: “After nine months of playing, we come home for just ten days. We don't want somebody to intrude upon our privacy for dope tests during that small period.” Must the worthy not stay at home all the time if he is so fussy with his privacy and family life? Tragically, crazy cricket fans will consider this question as blasphemous. It is this fixation about cricketers and judges that is behind the overall mediocrity of the country in every sphere. MS Gill pointed out: “The controversial whereabouts clause has been accepted even by sportspersons like Roger Federer. It is a commitment the world of sport has made and no sport should be outside the purview of this.”

E-mail |

Print | Post comment