Bull's Eye

President Kalam is grievously mistaken. He is not deceiving the world. If he is deceiving himself, he needs to be told the truth. To refresh his memory, this is the oath he must have taken on assuming office: "I, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, do swear in the name of God (or solemnly affirm), that I will faithfully execute the office of President (or discharge the functions of the President) of India and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law and that I will devote myself to the service and well-being of the people of India."

President Kalam did not serve the people of India. He served corrupt politicians. He considered the Office of Profit Bill to be against the Constitution and law. That is why he had returned it to Parliament without signing it. MPs accepted his arguments. They, too, saw flaws in the Bill and appointed a Joint Parliamentary Committee to address the president’s concerns. Had the president signed the Bill before Parliament’s decision, it might at best have been termed misjudgement. But he signed it after Parliament agreed with him that the Bill, in its present form, was against the law. Result? Scores of guilty MPs were exonerated retrospectively by a law considered by both the president and Parliament to be against the Constitution.

How does this square with the president’s oath to protect the Constitution? What other explanation is there apart from expediency to help the guilty evade punishment? The Supreme Court is considering a petition challenging the current law on office of profit. If the court judges the law illegal, how will President Kalam explain his action? He helped guilty MPs evade the law. Could he not end up being judged guilty himself?

(Puri can be reached at rajinderpuri2000@yahoo.com)