Cabinet note leak: Karunakaran touches a raw nerve

By Girish Menon

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, AUG. 6. The former Chief Minister and senior Congress Leader, Mr. K. Karunakaran has touched a raw nerve by openly questioning the Chief Minister, Mr. A. K. Antony's decision to order a Vigilance probe into the issue relating to the leak of crucial Cabinet notes.

The new round of controversy revolves around the High Court's oral direction to the Government to probe the leak of the crucial Cabinet note, which had been presented in court by former MLA, T S John during the court proceedings on the case related to sanctioning minority status to self-financing engineering colleges.

What adds an edge to Mr. Karunakaran's sharp remarks is the fact that it comes close on the heels of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. V. S. Achuthanandan's harsh statement about the leak. Even though the general inclination is to dismiss Mr. Karunakaran's observations as an attempt to throw obstacles on the Government's path, the senior leader has raised some fundamental issues which has not been answered with clarity by either by the Government or the Chief Minister.

Following the High Court observations, the Chief Minister announced a Vigilance probe into the leak of classified Cabinet notes. The point Mr. Karunakaran has sought to raise is that the Vigilance probe clearly hints at a lack of confidence in his Cabinet colleagues. Speaking to The Hindu before leaving for Delhi, Mr. Karunakaran reiterated his remarks telecast by a private channel on Sunday, stating that it was for the Chief Minister himself to conduct an inquiry. Otherwise, the act would be construed as an expression of lack of confidence in his Cabinet colleagues and a blow to collective responsibility.

In reply to a question, Mr. Karunakaran said that the Cabinet note is not like any other confidential Government document. "The Cabinet notes are usually seen only by the Chief Minister, Ministers, and the Chief Secretary. It is supposed to be under the custody of the Ministers, though it is possible that the contents would be known to other officials like the Ministers' private secretaries," he said and recalled two such instances which took place during his tenure as Chief Minister.

Mr. Antony, however, said in New Delhi that the decision to order a Vigilance probe was a unanimous decision by the Cabinet. The Parliamentary Affairs Minister, Mr. M. M. Hassan, said in Kozhikode that the Vigilance probe had been ordered as it had become clear that the Ministers were not involved in the leak of the classified Cabinet note.

The Vigilance inquiry would indeed help in determining the point at which the Cabinet note, which goes through many hands, was leaked. Earlier, the Transport Minister, Mr. K. B. Ganesh Kumar, had accused the Government employees unions for leaking out the Cabinet note.

The Chief Minister's and the Parliamentary Affairs Minister's statements hardly settle the issue. Rather it raises more pertinent points. a) on what basis did the Cabinet arrive at the conclusion that none of the Ministers were involved? b) If one were to go by the Government's stand, would it not be necessary for the Vigilance officials to take evidence from Ministers, who are their superiors. c) Is Mr. Karunakaran right while stating that only the Chief Minister, Ministers and Chief Secretary are privy to the Cabinet notes? d) or is there an attempt to find a scapegoat for the lapses of Ministers?

In any case, the High Court's observations proved to be an embarrassment to the Government because it showed it in a bad light.

However, much the Chief Minister might choose to ignore Mr. Karunakaran's observations, it hardly conceals the gaping holes in administration. Even if officials were indeed responsible, it would not absolve the Ministers from their responsibility.

This is not the first time that Mr. Karunakaran has reacted to the Government's shortcomings. He sharply criticised the Government for remaining mum to the Governor's action omitting a portion from his address to the first session of the State Assembly. The contentious portions related to a scathing attack on the previous LDF Government. He was also opposed to the moves to get the State Government pay Mr. Antony's dues to the IAF for hiring an aircraft to dash to the State in preparation to his election and CLP leader and subsequently the Chief Minister in 1995.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Southern States
Previous : PG medical course: HC upholds cut-off date
Next     : SAARC youth meet against militancy mooted