Media persons as cross-examiners?
By Amba Charan Vashishth
According to Press reports, media men in Gujarat have petititoned the Supreme Court of India that the Gujarat Police has shut themselves to media glare and are refusing to talk to them.
What I wish to say or not say on an issue is my right and discretion. Nobody can force me to say something. If Gujarat police -- and for that manner, any individual, public figure or politician -- have something to say on an issue at any time, it is their prerogative or privilege to do so at the right time. They cannot be forced to say something when the media want or press. What they say or not say is their right. Nobody can make anybody say what the other wants. Nobody has a right to put words in the mouth of a person by a media person trying to put loaded questions.
Those who are used to watch our news channels know how our anchors and media persons pester people to say something and try to cross-examine persons concerned. If a person doesn't want to say anything or comment on an issue, they like to know why doesn't he wish to say anything? Is he afraid of somebody? Is he trying to withhold some vital information and the like? Is it reasonable to put such questions and embarrass the individual?
It is true that media persons and news channels are just trying to make their viewers aware of the latest. But do they have the right to interpret in their own way the silence of an individual however important or unimportant he may be? Does the person put a question not have the right to refuse to answer? Is a person duty bound, legally and socially, to say something when he is put a question by some media person?
Are media persons not trying to encroach upon the individual's privacy and right of expression which includes not to say anything?
It is time the media persons also know their limits and recognise the rights and privileges of the individuals whom they wish to put questions. ***
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Narad-shaktistambh
MPs ‘guilty’; Ministers ‘innocent ?
By Amba Charan Vashishth
What the honourable MPs involved in the cash-for-questions scam and those facing human trafficking charges have done is not something honourable either for the individuals themselves, or the Parliament or for the Indian democracy and the nation. The Honourable Speaker of Lok Sabha has asked the earlier MPs and the latest ones, not to attend Parliament till Parliament takes a decision in their case. The Parliament in its own constitutional right, which was later upheld by the Supreme Court, expelled the MPs in cash-for-question scandal from the membership of their respective Houses. At the same time, we cannot ignore the fact that the Supreme Court had only put its seal of approval to the expulsion of MPs accused in cash-for-questions scam; it did not hold them guilty of their having committed any crime under the Indian Penal Code. Nor has any of them, so far, been charged for any criminal act in any court of law.
In the matter of those now allegedly involved in human trafficking, their conduct is, so far, under investigation for the crime under various sections of concerned law. But no court has so far pronounced anyone of the MPs or legislators allegedly involved guilty of the crime. Yet, they have been ‘punished’ with the diktat from attending the proceedings of the House to which they are, otherwise, legally and constitutionally entitled.
Similarly, the office of a minister, whether in the State or at the Centre, is an institution of the Constitution, doubly respectable because the incumbent besides being an honourable MP or MLA also acquires the added honour of being a minister. Yet, we have many of the Honourable Members of Parliament providing a halo of respectability to the office of ministers in the States and at the Centre although their conduct remains under investigation or they are facing charges in courts for heinous crimes, like rape, murder, dacoity, corruption, amassing wealth beyond known sources of income, mafia connections, and what not. In their cases, the Parliament and the Union Government have taken the stand that everybody (meaning MPs and legislators holding ministerial offices) have to be treated as ‘innocents’ till held guilty and sentenced by the highest court of the country. country. By this logic the honourable MPs censured and expelled by Parliament last year continue to be ‘innocent’ as no court in India has, so far, convicted any one of them for any crime. Nor has any court given its verdict in the matter of human trafficking against MPs recently hauled up.
If the MPs allegedly involved in the cash-for-questions and human trafficking scams have lowered the prestige and dignity of Parliament, the epoch-making conviction of an honourable Union Minister in office who was also an honourable MP did surely not enhance the glory of Parliament. He has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment on the charge of murder. Although he is rubbing his heels with other life convicts in jail for over six months now, yet he continues to be as honourable as other Members of Parliament. It is not sure whether he is still drawing his pay and perks while in jail. The only saving grace was that somehow or the other he was made to resign as honourable Minister and the government did not put forward its moral dictum to treat him ‘innocent’ till the final word had been said by the Supreme Court.
In the kind of democracy we have in India, do we have standards different for ordinary MPs and legislators and the others holding the honourable posts of ministers in the same house of Parliament and legislatures? *** ____________
By Amba Charan Vashishth
What the honourable MPs involved in the cash-for-questions scam and those facing human trafficking charges have done is not something honourable either for the individuals themselves, or the Parliament or for the Indian democracy and the nation. The Honourable Speaker of Lok Sabha has asked the earlier MPs and the latest ones, not to attend Parliament till Parliament takes a decision in their case. The Parliament in its own constitutional right, which was later upheld by the Supreme Court, expelled the MPs in cash-for-question scandal from the membership of their respective Houses. At the same time, we cannot ignore the fact that the Supreme Court had only put its seal of approval to the expulsion of MPs accused in cash-for-questions scam; it did not hold them guilty of their having committed any crime under the Indian Penal Code. Nor has any of them, so far, been charged for any criminal act in any court of law.
In the matter of those now allegedly involved in human trafficking, their conduct is, so far, under investigation for the crime under various sections of concerned law. But no court has so far pronounced anyone of the MPs or legislators allegedly involved guilty of the crime. Yet, they have been ‘punished’ with the diktat from attending the proceedings of the House to which they are, otherwise, legally and constitutionally entitled.
Similarly, the office of a minister, whether in the State or at the Centre, is an institution of the Constitution, doubly respectable because the incumbent besides being an honourable MP or MLA also acquires the added honour of being a minister. Yet, we have many of the Honourable Members of Parliament providing a halo of respectability to the office of ministers in the States and at the Centre although their conduct remains under investigation or they are facing charges in courts for heinous crimes, like rape, murder, dacoity, corruption, amassing wealth beyond known sources of income, mafia connections, and what not. In their cases, the Parliament and the Union Government have taken the stand that everybody (meaning MPs and legislators holding ministerial offices) have to be treated as ‘innocents’ till held guilty and sentenced by the highest court of the country. country. By this logic the honourable MPs censured and expelled by Parliament last year continue to be ‘innocent’ as no court in India has, so far, convicted any one of them for any crime. Nor has any court given its verdict in the matter of human trafficking against MPs recently hauled up.
If the MPs allegedly involved in the cash-for-questions and human trafficking scams have lowered the prestige and dignity of Parliament, the epoch-making conviction of an honourable Union Minister in office who was also an honourable MP did surely not enhance the glory of Parliament. He has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment on the charge of murder. Although he is rubbing his heels with other life convicts in jail for over six months now, yet he continues to be as honourable as other Members of Parliament. It is not sure whether he is still drawing his pay and perks while in jail. The only saving grace was that somehow or the other he was made to resign as honourable Minister and the government did not put forward its moral dictum to treat him ‘innocent’ till the final word had been said by the Supreme Court.
In the kind of democracy we have in India, do we have standards different for ordinary MPs and legislators and the others holding the honourable posts of ministers in the same house of Parliament and legislatures? *** ____________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)