As a Service, we have been declaring, to the world, that we 'stand by' our colleagues, who have apparently been dealt with unfairly. The question remains, what do we mean by that? Are we willing to go to jail for them? Or are we willing to go jail with them? Perhaps we can pool in their legal fees then. Except that marquee lawyers take upwards of a crore per hearing, and divided among 5000 odd IAS officers, that is some 2000 rupees per hearing per officer. Not a fortune, but surely it would make many people wary of standing by.
One has not read the judgement passed in the case. One takes the words of the seniors for it, that our senior colleagues have been hard done by. One has met many seniors who have vouched for the honesty of the officer(s) concerned. One is willing to believe that their 'crime' was something which has now been erased from the statutes.
What one finds hard to understand is how a system, which could not determine who was driving the vehicle on the Bandra road that fateful night, and which could not determine who shot the deer on that famous hunting spree, was so sure of itself that it rejected a CBI final report, and recorded in the rejection order that the conduct "falls within four corners" of an offence under PC Act. Was the investigator left with much choice, except to locate the final situation within those four corners?
Anyway, why should we blame over-enthusiasm of the system, when the case itself was born out of a glory hunting exercise by our own, even more senior, colleague. Does he 'stand by'? That the glory hunting turned itself conveniently into a political hatchet job was conveniently ignored. After the political price was paid, it was all water under the bridge. Except for the officers of the screening committee, who are left with the albatross of prosecution around their necks.
The most notable of the 'convicted' trio is retired. The two others were serving, at appropriately senior levels that their prosecution required sanction of the government; sanction which seems, was easily given. Do the officers, who gave the sanction, 'stand by'? One supposes those officers were sufficiently senior to understand that the named officers were not criminals. Or did they think otherwise? If they did, why don't they come out and convince the association, so that those who are 'standing by' may sit down. Or did they just roll over to the political desire. Or, worse, they did not even apply their minds before throwing their colleagues under the bus?
Anyway, situated where we are, what is the best course to go forth? We know that the system is hugely lawyer driven. If your lawyer is good enough, you are untouchable. Else, your conviction can be snatched out of a final report! Trouble is, pooling a quarter of one's salary for each hearing of our fallen comrades might not actually be feasible. Don't these lawyers take pro bono cases though? A lot of them were present in a post midnight court hearing to prevent the hanging of a convicted terrorist. Surely we can sell the honesty of our honest colleague to someone sympathetic. Or is our honesty just not the worth of a terrorist's pardon. That would also speak for the 'power' of the IAS, who collectively could not convince a proper lawyer for a good discount, if not pro bono hearing. I am sure none of 'best minds of the nation in their cohorts' would have imagined that their fates, at the fag end of life, would be in the hands of their classmates who took to law, and not just at the National Universities! Even the Government has some good quality lawyers, who have made the highest Lords reconsider. Government lawyers are known to take personal cases. If we cannot move these lawyers ourselves, their employers, who are our political masters, surely can. Can some of us request them for this help; once? Or do we roll over again, just like the instance when the prosecution was sanctioned.
Standing by might be conceived as a move at public opinion. We should know by now that as a group, public opinion is not our forte - if it were, we would be politicians (many of our colleagues who do rule public opinion did recently cross to the political side - did someone check with them if they stand by?) If anybody has any false overestimation of what our standing by is achieving in public opinion space, one just needs to check the comments section of the articles about this move. Only a forcefully argued case in the court can help redeem these officers, as well as the Service at large. However, forget about getting marquee lawyers, the supposedly venal officer is unable to afford a simple lawyer. One can only pray for a miracle!
