Modi's Constitutional Governance: Addressing the CBI Director Case and Broader Implications

Why is Modi not following the Constitution in important matters like the CBI director case?

The recent controversy surrounding the CBI director case in India has sparked intense debate among legal experts, political observers, and citizens alike. There are increasing concerns about whether Prime Minister Modi is respecting the constitutional framework or if he is engaging in authoritarian behavior. The prime minister's actions in handling this matter, particularly the midnight drama involving the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the leader of the opposition, have raised eyebrows and demands for a more transparent, consultative approach.

Understanding the Midnight Drama

The incident that has garnered the most attention is the late-night meeting between the Prime Minister and the CJI. The prime minister's actions are being questioned on multiple levels. Firstly, the decision to hold a midnight meeting with a political adversary is not a typical practice in constitutional governance. It implies a hasty and rushed decision-making process, rather than a calm, deliberate one.

Secondly, the involvement of the leader of the opposition in such a sensitive matter sets a precedent that could compromise the independence of the judiciary. The judiciary is an independent branch of government, and any interference, even if well-intentioned, can be seen as an intrusion into its functioning.

Why the Mid-Night Drama Was Avoidable

The prime minister's team could have approached the matter in a more measured and constitutional manner. Instead of engaging in a midnight drama, the government could have chosen to call the CJI and the leader of the opposition during a reasonable time to discuss the issue. They could have shared the data and evidence that would justify any urgent action required. It is possible that the CJI would have understood and approved the actions if they were genuinely justified, even if the leader of the opposition objected.

The Broader Issue: Promoting Political Interference

The central issue at hand is not just the midnight drama but the broader problem of promoting political interference in the functioning of independent institutions. The prime minister's thinking appears to be that their massive mandate gives them absolute power. This attitude undermines the principles of constitutional governance and the separation of powers.

The true test of a government's maturity is its ability to ensure that institutions operate on technocratic lines, free from political interference. It is a challenge for any government, especially one with a strong mandate, to resist the urge to dictate to agencies like the CBI, the Election Commission, or the Reserve Bank of India. Independence of such institutions is crucial for the health of the democratic process.

Historical Precedents and Lessons

The prime minister's actions in the CBI director case are reminiscent of other big-bang reforms like demonetization, the implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST), Aadhar, and dealing with the Election Commission/Supreme Court (SC) and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). In these cases, too, there was a lack of consultation and a tendency to push reforms through quickly, often bypassing established processes and institutions.

For instance, demonetization caused economic shockwaves and uncertainty, despite multiple warnings from policy experts about its potential drawbacks. Similarly, the implementation of GST has had a significant impact on businesses and consumers, while Aadhar has raised privacy concerns. These instances highlight the need for a more consultative and transparent approach.

Conclusion

The CBI director case, and the preceding actions by the prime minister, raise important questions about the principles of constitutional governance and the need for a technocratic approach that respects the independence of institutions. The prime minister's actions must align with the constitutional framework to ensure that the government and the state function effectively and democratically.

The demonstrated willingness to interfere with judicial processes and to circumvent established procedures is a serious concern. It challenges the very principles of democracy and the rule of law. Moving forward, it is crucial that the prime minister and his team adhere to constitutional norms and promote a culture of consultation and transparency.