Estate vs. Custodianship- Relevance in Democracy & Governance
Estate vs.
Custodianship- Relevance in Democracy & Governance
It is very well
defined in our constitution & judiciary that the democratically elected and
constitutionally held positions have to keep the country's integrity and sovereignty
intact and effectively perform role of custodian and safe guard the national
property against all evil forces. The oath of office and secrecy taken before
getting into these positions by politicians, bureaucrats, judiciary, others,
clearly define the respective position's role as custodian and attorney.
Unfortunately
what is happening in the country day in day out is very different from
democratic defined principles. We come across so many incidents of lands being
allotted at through away prices, contracts are awarded to kith and kin at
escalated rates, huge scaling up of estimates in infra & development
projects and many more. Under the cover
of shared responsibility, certain decisions are taken at cabinet level with
supportive notes from different layers; unfortunately even some of cabinet decisions
are against custodianship.
If one is taking
decision on allocating/donating/selling his self acquired/hereditary property,
free of cost, donation or at a rate (as for his own will) it is purely a estate
decision. But when it comes to any decision related to public property the
custodianship has to prevail over estate and decisions has to be more
transparent and participative in the larger interest of the country.
There has to be
improved accountability in public life to ensure the quality of custodianship
and judiciary has to play a key role in implementing the custodianship and oath
of secrecy in letter and spirit. Judiciary shall prevail and act as big brother
to uphold the principles of democracy.
BG
Reddy-9866889246
grbonthu@gmail.com
Comments