Is Section 8 meant to protect bribery?

As of now, Naidu has not denied that the voice in the tape is his. Against this background, probably, he might have thought that it is easy and legal to take shelter under the Section 8 to escape arrest if it comes to that. But, is the Section 8 really meant to protect all those who indulge in bribery and corruption or does it have something else inherent in it?

It is reported in the media that AP Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu has requested the President and the Prime Minister to frame rules and guidelines under the Section 8 of the AP State Reorganization Act, vesting the Governor with the power to maintain law and order, protect individual liberty and properties of the citizens of Hyderabad.

Before doing this, Naidu removed the Telangana police force that was stationed in front of his house as security, and in its place the AP Contingency has come. These he might have done due to fear of a possible arrest in the note-for-vote episode in which one of his party legislators was caught red-handed, arrested and subjected to interrogation. An audio tape was telecast on several channels where Naidu’s voice was heard trying to bribe nominated MLA Elvis Stephenson, seeking his support for Telugu Desam Party in the Telangana Legislative Council election held on June 1, 2015.

As of now, Naidu has not denied that the voice in the tape is his. Against this background, probably, he might have thought that it is easy and legal to take shelter under the Section 8 to escape arrest if it comes to that. But, is the Section 8 really meant to protect all those who indulge in bribery and corruption or does it have something else inherent in it? On one side, he is depending upon the Section 8, and, on the other hand, he is making his own arrangements for his protection.

Going into the content and context of the Section 8 of the Act, it can be clearly understood that it has nothing to do with the incidents of bribery and corruption where the Governor’s intervention is required. As per the Act, though Hyderabad shall be a common capital for both the States, it is a permanent one for Telangana and for AP it is the capital only for a period not exceeding 10 years. Hyderabad shall remain in the geographical and administrative jurisdiction of Telangana State and for all practical purposes it is part of Telangana and shall be governed by the Telangana government.

It is only for the purpose of security of life, liberty and property, the Governor has a special responsibility. Further, his responsibility extends to matters such as law and order, internal security and security of vital installations, and management and allocation of government buildings in the common capital area. However, in discharge of these functions also, the Governor shall, after consulting the Council of Ministers of the State of Telangana only, exercises his individual judgment as to the action to be taken.

Nowhere in the Section 8 there is a mention to the Governor’s responsibility with regard to cases of bribery and corruption. Does bribery form part of law and order or internal security or security of vital installations? Does it form part of security of life or liberty or property? Is there a single incident during the last one year where the Governor was required to intervene to invoke his responsibilities under the Section 8?

Further, has at any point of time Naidu found a reason to complain? It is only now he thought of this and that too when he is figuring in the tapes as aired in the TV channels.

While this is so, the nature of the Constitution of India mandates law and order as a subject of the State. Therefore, the bulk of the policing lies with the respective States and territories of India. Each State and the union territory of India has a state police force, headed by the Director General of Police (DGP), and different agencies function under him like ACB. Each State is controlled by the Chief Minister. The State police is responsible for maintaining law and order in townships of the State and the rural areas.

It is also the responsibility of every State to provide required security and connected arrangements to a visiting dignitary, be it a Chief Minister or a Union Minister as and when they tour in a state other than theirs. None of them by law can take along with them their state police for security or protection. So also should be the case with Naidu. As long as the AP CM is in Hyderabad, which is part of Telangana, he has to avail of the security and protection from the Telangana police only. Posting his state police is a violation of nature of Constitution.

Similarly, as and when any State police has a need to enter the other State for some investigation or to arrest someone or for any police-related issue, they necessarily should consult the state police concerned and then only initiate action. Law of the land does not permit one to act according to free will. In India that has 70 years history of democratic governance and where governments changed through ballot once in five years, no one is above the law, however powerful one might be.

Several times top people who occupied high positions have been subjected to legal process and many a time Chief Ministers, Union Ministers and even former Prime Ministers had to face the interrogation and even some of them had to taste jail life too. None is an exception before law. The law will take its own course. Instead of pleading non-guilty, Naidu should prove that he is not guilty. He should not divert the issue.

By Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao