The threat by the BJP State unit president, Th Chaoba, that he would slap a defamation lawsuit against three parties which had either directly accused or implied by insinuation that he was party in the alleged gross acts of corruption by the now ousted and disgraced former director of the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, RIMS, Dr. S Sekharjit, has taken an interesting turn with one of the parties he served legal notice, in defiance challenging him to put his action where is mouth is. Special correspondent of The Statesman and former member of the State Human Rights Commission, Laba Yambem, in a press conference on Sunday, said he has all the proofs of whatever corruption charges he levelled against the veteran politician, who has been deputy chief minister of the State and a minister of state of the Union government, and dared the latter to go ahead and engage him and his organisation in a court battle. The third party in the unseemly entangle, Huieyen Lanpao daily, has chosen to remain silent on the matter. It remains to be seen how Chaoba response to this new development.
We are interested for two primary reasons. One, if proven, it is a matter involving a systematic and institutionalised corruption of gargantuan size. At the heart of the matter is a CBI raid at the then RIMS director, Dr. S Sekharjit`™s office and residence in August. The parties against whom Chaoba threatened to initiate defamation suits had alleged that the CBI found among other incriminating documents, a letter which implied a senior BJP leader (which Laba and others presumes was Chaoba) had taken Rs 1 crore from the RIMS director on the promise he would ward off any CBI probe into the RIMS affairs. This is a very serious allegation. The second reason is, since the matter has also been so prominently brought into public space, it must be taken to a logical conclusion. Doing otherwise would amount to a misuse and indeed abuse of an important public forum. It would also mean the demeaning of the notion of law itself. If there is reasonable suspicion of such a crime, it would be the bounden duty of the law itself to step in to pursue the matter suo motto. If on the other hand, the charges turn out to have no foundation, the grave injustice borne by the man thus charged must also be compensated adequately under the law of the land to justice is ensured. It is true there is already a case underway with the CBI on the matter of the RIMS, but this is not the same as the defamation case Chaoba has threatened. In other words, let the matter not be allowed to die in a whimper since its protagonists ensure it began with a bang. This is so that the media and therefore the public are not allowed to used as personal propaganda vehicle by any party.
Unfortunately, for too long, the law has been allowed to be as empty alibis in political rhetoric. The strategy is for those in the political game to threaten or else slap lawsuit and then forget about it. The benefit they try to get out of it is not so much about exonerating themselves from the charges they face, but just to create an impression in the minds of the larger not so literate public that since a legal challenged has been made, and theatrically too, presumably all suspicions as to their integrity would have been cleared. They will then forget the initial sound and fury they announced their intent. If a case has been initiated, they would simply let it drag on for years and decades without in any haste to see a conclusion to it. Sometimes, they may not even take the trouble of taking the matter to court, if they think the purpose of diverting public attention has already been served. All media persons and organisations would have faced this situation where they ended up harassed by court summons in meaningless cases which even those who filed these cases have lost interest. The IFP is no exception, and its editor have had to rush back to Imphal from Shimla several time where he was stationed for two years to attend hearings in a virtually hollow and meaningless two decade long case with a former chief minister, which ultimately the IFP won, but with nothing to vindicate or show as benefit. It was plain harassment, albeit in a legal way, meted out to people for whom time and resources are precious, by people who have nothing better to do and for whom resources are unlimited. In the current Rs. 50 crore defamation case threat widely publicised in the media, we would not like to see the law made into an ass yet again.
Leader Writer: Pradip Phanjoubam