Sandesh Prabhudesai
6 Feb 1998
Despite entering the Parliament for the first time in 1996, Adv
Ramakant Khalap, the sole MP of the Goa-based Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party became the
union minister of state for law and justice, with an independent charge. Getting impressed
over his performance in the Deve Gowda government, prime minister I K Gujral gave him the
additional responsibility of Company Laws.
He had a quite sensational tenure of 10 months, since it was the time
when judicial activism was at its peak, several top politicians were arrested under
corruption charges and the era of liberalisation compelled the government to drastically
change several age-old legislations in the country.
While the prospects of the United Front coming back to power seems
bleak with some of its constituents leaving the front, Adv Khalap is also struggling hard
to retain his North Goa seat, where his fate would be decided on 28 February. There are
also rumours that he may join the BJP-led government, since the white-haired
lawyer-turned-politician is equally close to the saffron leaders in Delhi.
SANDESH PRABHUDESAI spoke to him at length regarding his
achievements, unfulfilled agenda and the his future political plans, if he gets
re-elected. The excerpts.
What are your major achievements as the union law minister, the
responsibility you performed quite successfully ?
Well, I am the luckiest minister among all and am fully satisfied with
the opportunities I got and the work I have done.
The most important one, among all, is formation of the Law Reforms
Commission set up under the chairmanship of Justice Jeevan Reddy, former chief justice of
India, to study and propose reforms to all the existing laws in the country. It had become
necessary with the Indian economy being liberalised. We are also the WTO member now.
Besides this, steps are being taken to reform civil as well as criminal
procedures, starting a system of alternate dispute redressal, setting up Lok Adalats for
speedy justice, initiating process of disposing of around four crore long-pending cases
all over the country in next one and a half year, amending the Notaries Act, 1954 for the
first time, passing of the new Arbitration Law and initiating delimitation of
constituencies. I have also computerised all the high courts and the Supreme Court while
making the whole legal system available on the INTERNET.
But what about your election promise to give a common civil code to the
whole nation, like the one you are having in your state of Goa ?
I definitely succeeded in it, but partially. I began a nation-wide
debate on the issue, due to which even the BJP today agrees that the common civil code
should be formulated only after reaching a consensus among most of the political parties.
But the BJP’s recent manifesto proposes to tell the Law Commission
to prepare a draft, incorporating good features from all the personal laws. Why did you
fail to do it ?
There is no substance in what the BJP is saying. The Law Commission is
already seized of the matter and its terms of reference also include aspect of personal
laws.
Do you think a consensus is possible ?
Well, if not all, we can definitely have consensus on certain aspects
and bring it into force, like we partially succeeded in bringing a few electoral reforms.
Though no consensus could emerge on all the proposals, some have become the law today.
Which are the major electoral reforms remain to be brought in ?
We wanted to take up major reforms in the anti-defection act, the issue
of state funding and prevention of criminals from entering the fray. But, unfortunately,
no consensus could reach on all the three aspects. For example, every party agrees that a
defector should be disqualified. But they are not positive on not providing any loophole,
like the one we have now, allowing splits with one third members of the Parliamentary
party’s total strength.
What is the way out ?
A bill can be moved, providing for disqualification on the grounds of
defections per say, without making any provision for requalification. Let the House
decide.
But the House always leaves some or the other loopholes. Now you have
barred criminals from contesting elections, but only those who are convicted. The
"undertrials" are free to contest. How do you justify it ?
I don’t justify it. On the contrary, I personally feel that any
person, against whom lies a prima facie charge of heinous crime like dacoity, murder,
involvement in scams or even a case under COFEPOSA, he needs to be kept out of the fray.
But I must confess that it is not an easy thing to do, because the fundamental principles
say that no person is criminal unless convicted.
Does it mean that criminals would continue to remain in politics ?
That’s the fear. The only solution is to reform the procedure of
criminal trials in such a way that judgements are made available in the shortest possible
period.
As a law minister of this country, you have experienced the most active
days of the Indian judiciary. How do you describe it ?
The judicial activism was always looked upon with awe and scepticism. I
even sounded a caution about overuse of the superactivity.
Was it misused ?
That fear is still there. The actual scope of power under the public
interest litigation and the judicial activism has lost sight, resulting into encroaching
of its rights upon other two wings of our democratic set up.
What happened to your plans of proposing some amendments to the system
of filing PIL ?
Not amendments. I said the Supreme Court should lay down proper
parameters for filing the PIL, so that people know under what circumstances they can
approach the courts while courts also would get guidelines about the extent to which they
can pass orders.
The judiciary is stepping into every aspect of the government
functioning today, giving enough justifications for it. But do you believe that the
judiciary is fully clean?
Nothing can be absolutely clean and judiciary is not an exception to
the rule. This has been even admitted by former chief justice Verma, who made attempts to
have an in-house mechanism to check it.
You can impeach them before the House...
It’s not practical. But the time has come, I feel, to evolve a new
procedure for both the appointments and transfers of the judges as well as to deal with
the aspect of disciplinary action. We need to have an independent body like a Judicial
Commission to deal with such matters.
Does it also include appointment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court ? Because the appointment of the present chief justice itself became a
controversy...
Why not ? Because there is no proper forum legally made available to
investigate into allegations against the judges. Today judges appoint the judges. The
prime minister and the law minister are mere glorified postmen. We had no role to play
into it. We had to accept the report submitted by the chief justice, whose report had
given clean chit to Justice Punchhi after investigating into the allegations made against
him.
The BJP is today suggesting that the face of Indian constitution be
changed and we should accept the Presidential system. What do you feel about it ?
The country must wait and watch the evolution through which we are
passing. It’s an era of coalitions and alliances. As long as the coalition
governments work effectively with the Common Minimum Programme and does not become a
chronic crisis, we should not think of the Presidential form of elections. In a situation
where we are ridden with disparities like caste, creed, religion and language, one person
cannot emerge as a national leader, who can carry entire population with him.
Is it true that you were trying to seek an election alliance with the
BJP to get elected, which can also give you a ministerial berth, if the BJP comes to power
?
It’s totally false. I am with the UF and will remain with the UF.
I am not that class of politicians who jump sides for petty gains.
Do you think that a ministerial berth is a petty gain ?
Of course. If a ministerial berth attracts a politician from one party
to another, what is it other than defection, which is banned under Constitution of India ?
That is for the political parties and not the fronts like the UF...
Still it’s a defection.
Does it mean that you will remain with the UF for ever ?
I will remain with the UF, as long as the UF remains.
But the UF has already split...
To some extent. It’s still in power and its major components are
still there.
The prime basis for coming together under the banner of the United
Front was to keep the BJP out of power. But if the BJP comes to power tomorrow with its
allies while the UF splits, would you keep yourself away from joining the BJP government ?
Well, I will see the common minimum programme of the BJP-led government
before taking a decision. But, I think, it will be the UF government once again, to be
supported by the Congress.
