The Madras high court recently said that people holding responsible public posts are acting with the “evil elements” of favouritism, nepotism and corrupt activities that are “anti-developmental, anti-national and unconstitutional” By Divya Chandrababu, Chennai

os
Trending
Coronavirus
Lifestyle
World News
Education
Home / India News / Madras HC pulls up public servants over ‘practising favouritism’

HT Image
HT Image
INDIA NEWS
Madras HC pulls up public servants over ‘practising favouritism’

The Madras high court recently said that people holding responsible public posts are acting with the “evil elements” of favouritism, nepotism and corrupt activities that are “anti-developmental, anti-national and unconstitutional”
By Divya Chandrababu, Chennai
PUBLISHED ON JUL 10, 2021 01:05 AM IST
The Madras high court recently said that people holding responsible public posts are acting with the “evil elements” of favouritism, nepotism and corrupt activities that are “anti-developmental, anti-national and unconstitutional”.
The court made these observations while disposing of a series of writ petitions filed since 2012 by Red Giant Movies, a production and distribution company headed by Udhaynidhi Stalin, son of chief minister M K Stalin. The case pertains to Red Giant movies filing writs that they were being discriminated against as they belonged to the opposition party then and were not being granted exemption under the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act, 1939.
The then Government of Tamil Nadu passed an order in July 2006 under the Entertainments Tax Act, granting exemption from payment of entertainment tax for the movies having their title in Tamil. A subsequent government order in July 2011, imposed additional conditions. The government issued orders in January 2012, constituting a committee of persons as official and as ex-officio members to view and assess the movies based on applications submitted by the producers/distributors for tax exemption. Before the DMK won the assembly elections, for which results were announced on May 2, the AIADMK was in power from 2011.
A bench comprising Justice S M Subramaniam passed an order on July 5 which became on Friday, saying that he found substance in the petitioner’s allegations of malafides. But the court said that due to lack of specifics evidence and lapse in time, the court could not grant the prayer that sought for quashing government orders related to the case. “As far as the present writ petitions are concerned, this Court could easily visualize the possibilities of favouritism and discrimination,” the court said in its order. “However, the Committee’s overall exercise was improper as the members of the Committee have a certain personal affinity with the Government or the Political leaders, who were ruling the State. Courts cannot undo the exercise in the event of not establishing malafide with concrete proof.”
The court went on to issue guidelines to the present government to ensure that committee members are fair. On those lines, the court delved into issues of institutions, the integrity of public officers, judicial activism and corruption. “One can imagine if favouritism, nepotism and corrupt activities are allowed to go on to such an extent, the common man will suffer and we will not march towards the goal of social justice as enunciated in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution,” the court said. “Therefore, the appointment of women and men of integrity in public posts, specifically in such Expert Committees are of paramount importance.”
Stating that institutions are majestic and created with a noble purpose, the court said that it was men and women, administering these institutions, who lack integrity and are to be blamed for illegal activities. “The definition of corruption is not confined only on the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification,” the court said. “Corruption in many other forms are far more dangerous than illegal gratifications. Those corrupt activities in the mind are the cause for the destruction of the institutions in this Country. Therefore, people should realise that the appointment of women and men of integrity and honesty alone is the solution for the purpose of upholding the institutional values, recognition and majesty.”
The court instructed that the government must be careful while making appointments in government organisations, as an institution’s integrity is lost if the character of an individual working there is lost. The guidelines include selections to be made beyond the political affinities, aspirations and ideologies, “keeping in mind that it is public appointments”. Integrity and honesty with merit must be criteria. “If each Political party appointing their men in such Expert Committees, if allowed to be continued, then there is no scope for the revival of social justice, equality in opportunities, merit and integrity,” the court said.
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON

You may also like...