I detest ‘‘sting operations’’; clandestine clips that intrude on a man’s privacy: whoever or whatever that man may be. But then I also dislike the spectacle of a Minister of Government or a prominent public figure who is seen accepting wads of currency notes. The written word was once the forte of the press—but no longer. Now, only seeing is believing, reading is not. But we are informed by the knowledgeable that modern photographic techniques and video clips are prone to manipulation. Possibly. But the public simply don’t care—they tend to agree with the plain speaking economist John Galbraith who once said: ‘‘There is always pleasure in the fall of the great and greatly fraudulent.’’ But is the exposure by the press in the wider public interest? Or should we have a strict law of privacy? I am not so sure of the first, but as to the latter, I do not favour it: the vast millions of this country have no need for it—simply because they are not important enough to be noticed in the media (print or electronic); and as for the few who are in positions of governance and those who are in the public glare (the ‘‘limelight’’) it is best that their reputation be left to be taken care of by the laws of defamation.Defamation laws, after all, are the honourable exception to freedom of speech guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of our Constitution. We must leave the ‘‘precious’’ reputation of public figures to market forces. Those who like to see their names and faces in the print and electronic media cannot shout ‘foul’ when some non-proven allegation is made against them: they are, after all, under public exposure, and must be subjected to the vagaries of the market, like speculators on the stock-exchange. In my opinion, the greatest deterrent to combating corruption in public life, would be to arm the ‘‘citizen’’ with a new fundamental right of privacy! You will not protect the citizenry—you will only be building a shield of armour for the reputedly corrupt few. Who, then, will clean up the moral mess we are in? No one I am afraid except perhaps a Lok Pal—a Lok Pal who is both vigilant and fearless and who is not bothered if he shakes up the Establishment whether it be Government or any other institution. The answer to what one person can do was given many years ago by the Editor of a pre-eminently left-bank literary journal in France (Nouvelle Revue Francoise). He was its Editor until he was ousted by his own Kinsmen who collaborated with the invading German army in 1942. He then joined the ‘‘Resistance’’—and when asked what one Frenchman could do against such heavy odds, his answer was: ‘‘You can squeeze a bee in your hand until it suffocates. It would suffocate without stinging you. That’s precious little, you will say, but if it did not sting you, bees would have become extinct a long time ago.’’ If a future Lok Pal—he, she or it (we still don’t know what form it will take in the law that is promised but not yet passed)—if the future Lok Pal functions like a stinging bee, that will be the sting operation that I would applaud! Eminent jurist Fali Nariman is a Rajya Sabha MP.
