Strange are the ways of the Supreme Court

Armour for Subba

There are times when the ways of the Supreme Court, that has always put the nation above all else, are beyond the understanding of the common man. Times without number the Supreme Court has gone against powerful vested interests in the cause of the people, as it did in seeking to protect the ecology of Delhi sought to be ruined by vested interests with powerful godfathers and unauthorized industries established in residential areas. And yet, the same Supreme Court went all out on Wednesday to provide protection to an individual who has done everything possible to cheat the people who elected him their representative to the Lok Sabha thrice. Here was a lawmaker who disgraced the nation by managing to contest and win Indian parliamentary elections without being an Indian citizen. He had produced different birth certificates and sworn affidavits based on them before the electoral authorities at different times while filing his nomination papers for Lok Sabha elections. In doing so, he had given his date of birth variously as March 16, 1951 (born in Tezpur) and as March 16, 1958 (born in Siliguri). However, it was known to people that he was actually Mani Raj Limboo, a citizen of Nepal and a fugitive from the law of that country, and that he had fraudulently claimed Indian citizenship and produced false birth certificates in order to be able to file his nomination papers to contest Indian elections. A Noida resident, Birendra Nath Singh, had filed a public interest case in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had instructed the CBI to investigate the matter and to file an affidavit with evidence to establish Subba’s nationality and place of birth. The CBI was able to establish the fraud that Mani Kumar Subba had perpetrated on his electorate, his political party (the Indian National Congress) and the Indian Parliament in becoming an Indian MP without being an Indian. As such, the CBI’s last report filed before the Supreme Court on December 10, 2007 had recommended that action should be taken against Mani Kumar Subba under Sections 193 (fabricating false evidence), 420 (cheating), 468 (forgery), 471 (using forged documents as genuine) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the Passport Act. It will be recalled that the CBI action of December 2007 was in response to a directive of the apex court to it to verify the documents submitted by Subba. It will also be recalled that the CBI had caused quite a commotion when it had claimed on April 28, 2008 that Subba’s documents and birth certificates submitted to the Election Commission to prove his Indian nationality appeared to be fake.
What is indeed very strange is that even in such an exceptional case of a non-Indian being able to take the nation for a ride and remain an MP for three terms, the Supreme Court should have neglected to take swift action and have a foreigner MP put behind bars promptly as an act of deterrence for other aspiring foreign criminals. The CBI’s report to the Supreme Court has not been acted on for nearly two years instead of the apex court initiating swift penal action well before the last parliamentary elections. In any case, the latest report of the CBI was placed before the Supreme Court on Wednesday. And that was when Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, counsel for Singh, argued that since the CBI report had gone against Subba, the court should “direct” the CBI to “take further action” against the former MP. Sinha contended that an FIR should be filed and action taken against Subba. “He has committed all types of offences. This is a serious case. The court should take action against him,” Sinha submitted. However, turning down this prayer by the Noida petitioner, a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India KGBalakrishnan said, “We will not give any directions to the CBI to take action.” For once, the people of India are entitled to ask, “Why not?” even if the ruling comes from the highest court in the land. It is not said for nothing that justice must not only be done but it must also seem to have been done. Quite obviously, the man in the street does not see how justice has been done in dealing with a man who has managed to hoodwink the entire nation and the Election Commission and the Indian Parliament for several years. Why should anyone be interested in protecting Mani Kumar Subba except the Congress? The Congress is both embarrassed and deprived of the money that Subba brings to elections. The Congress is embarrassed also because it has been caught out trying to hide something that it knew all along: that Subba was a Nepali fugitive from justice trying to pass off as an Indian. The Congress not only helped him to sustain this pretence but even nominated a practically illiterate man like him as an MP from Tezpur, where he won the elections thrice, tasting defeat only in 2009. There was nothing in this hardened lawbreaker to commend him to be nominated from Tezpur. He could never make one sensible remark in any parliamentary debate and he did nothing for his electorate. But having made a terrible mistake about him in the first place — a mistake stemming from pretence, as on the Bangladeshi issue — the Congress was obliged to protect this wealthy lawbreaker who produced a veritable flood of funds for the party at every election. But the Supreme Court has no obligation to provide a shield to a hardened lawbreaker. Why has it chosen to do so? And will the CBI evince the courage to take action against Subba since it does not need the court’s permission to do so? The nation will watch the developments with great interest in the coming days.

The above is from the Editorial of The Sentinel, a paper published from Assam.
It is a truly national paper fighting to save Assam from the onslaught of illegal immigrants in Assam
It points above to a hardened law-breaker in Assam who is a member of the Congress party (nothing surprising in that as the Congress is always supporting law-breakers) but is also being protected by the Supreme Court, for reasons known only to it. After all they are all wise men in the Supreme Court.