Mr. Vaghul, our first Chairperson, passed away on Saturday. I write this note to express my deep gratitude to him, and to celebrate his life. And what a life he lived!
|
Mr. Vaghul and I at his residence |
Our past and present Chairpersons, |
Industry stalwarts have spoken about his contributions to the financial sector, his mentorship of people and institutions across finance, industry and non-profits. I don’t want to repeat that (though I was a beneficiary as a young professional starting my career at ICICI Securities). I want to note here some of the ways he helped shape PRS.
Mr Vaghul was our first chairman, from 2012 to 2018. When he joined the board, we were in deep financial crisis. Our FCRA application had been turned down (I still don’t know the reason), and we were trying to survive on monthly fund raise. Mr Vaghul advised us to raise funds from domestic philanthropists. “PRS works to make Indian democracy more effective. We should not rely on foreigners to do this.”. He was sure that Indian philanthropists would fund us. “We’ll try our best. But if it doesn’t work, we may shut down. Are you okay with that?” Of course, with him calling up people, we survived the crisis.
He also suggested that we should have an independent board without any representation from funders. The output should be completely independent of funders’ interest given that we were working in the policy space. We have stuck to this advice.
Even when he was 80, he could read faster than anyone and remember everything. I once said something in a board meeting which had been written in the note sent earlier. “We have all read the note. Let us discuss the implications.” And he could think three steps ahead of everyone else.
He had a light touch as a chairman. When I asked for management advice, he would ask me to solve the problem on my own. He saw his role as guiding the larger strategy, help raise funds and ensure that the organisation had a strong value system. Indeed, he was the original Karmayogi – I have an email from him which says, “Continue with the good work. We should neither be euphoric with appreciation or distracted by criticism.” And another, "Those who adhere to the truth need not be afraid of the consequences".
The best part about board meetings was the chat afterwards. He would have us in splits with stories from his experience. Some of these are in his memoirs, but we heard a few juicier ones too!
Even after he retired from our Board, he was always available to meet. I just needed to message him whenever I was in Madras, and he would ask me to come home. And Mrs. Vaghul was a welcoming host. Filter coffee, great advice, juicy stories, what more could one ask for?
Goodbye Mr. Vaghul. Your life lives on through the institutions you nurtured. And hope that we live up to your standards.
Madhavan
Criminal laws in India by way of “sanctions” allow for protective discrimination in favour of public officials.[1] Under various laws, sanctions are required to investigate and prosecute public officials. Over the past 15 years these provisions of law have been revisited by the judiciary and the legislature. Recently the Supreme Court in the Subramanian Swamy Case has suggested the concept of a deemed sanction. We look at the history of the requirement of sanction under criminal laws. Requirement of sanction to investigate certain public servants of the union government was introduced through a government notification[2]. The Criminal Procedure Code 1973 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 provide that to prosecute a public servant, permission or sanction has to be secured from the government (central or state) for which the official works. Arguments that are often advanced in favour of such sanctions are that these ensure that (a) frivolous and vexatious cases are not filed, (b) public officials are not harassed, and (c) the efficacy of administrative machinery is not tampered with. Further, the requirement of sanction to investigate was also defended by the government before the Supreme Court in certain cases. In Vineet Narain vs. Union of India 1997[3], the government had argued that the CBI may not have the requisite expertise to determine whether the evidence was sufficient for filing a prima facie case. It was also argued that the Act instituting the CBI, Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946 (DSPE Act), granted the power of superintendence, and therefore direction, of the CBI to the central government. The Court in this case struck down the requirement of sanction to investigate. It held that “supervision” by the government could not extend to control over CBI’s investigations. As for prosecution, the Court affixed a time frame of three months to grant sanction. However, there was no clarity on what was to be done if sanction was not granted within such time. Following that judgment, the DSPE Act was amended in 2003, specifically requiring the CBI to secure a sanction before it investigated certain public servants. More recently, the Lokpal and Lokayukta Bill, 2011 that is pending before the Rajya Sabha, removed the requirement of sanction to investigate and prosecute public servants in relation to corruption. Recently, Mr. Subramanian Swamy approached the Supreme Court for directions on his request for sanction to prosecute Mr. A Raja in relation to the 2G Scam. As per the Supreme Court, judgment in Subramanian Swamy vs. Dr. Manmohan Singh & Anr, Mr. Swamy’s request was pending with the department for over 16 months. The Supreme Court held that denial of a timely decision on grant of sanction is a violation of due process of law (Right to equality before law read with Right to life and personal liberty). The Court reiterated the three month time frame for granting sanctions. It suggested that Parliament consider that in case the decision is not taken within three months, sanction would be deemed to be granted. The prosecution would then be responsible for filing the charge sheet within 15 days of the expiry of this period.
[1] Subramanian Swamy vs. Dr. Manmohan Singh & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 1193 of 2012 dated January 31, 2012
[2] Single Directive, No. 4.7.3
[3] AIR 1998 SC 889
