Propriety is fast depleting from public
domain. What was once considered to be the key characteristic of a
public figure has now touched the nadir. Hardly one can find a person
in public life who is out and out honest in every dimension of trait
calibration. After all they are little mortal and human. They have
all those mundane aspirations that often transgress the idealistic
fabric when they come across a situation more tempting than the
laurels of idealism. And how can a human being become so indifferent
to inherited animal instincts that today drive mankind towards
unachievable goals through sheer determination? The determination to
surpass all established dogmas, doctrines, and demarcations. But
along with that proliferates another human trait – hypocrisy –
which emboldens human beings to do the unthinkable and still engage
in self aggrandizement. Perhaps, that's the most sordid aspect of
human evolution.
Well, the world is changing, so is the
human perception. In the advent of ubiquitous social media and 24x7
news channels, the jury is out in the open. Any act of corruption,
malpractice, wrongdoing, or even unethical private affair is not more
privy to the public figure, rather it's analyzed threadbare,
disseminated bit by bit, debated unabashed, deliberated to the last
grain, and finally bounced back to public domain for a savory relish.
For that act becomes a subject of public interest.
The recent CD controversy in which
Abhishek Manu Singhvi,a senior Congress leader and a member of Rajya
Shabha, is allegedly shown to be indulged in a sexual act in his
chamber with a senior advocate and aspirant of a higher judicial
position, the arguments supporting right to privacy fall flat on the
face of a larger public interest. What's more deplorable here that
Singhvi is not only a senior MP, but he is also chairman of a
Parliamentary committee on law and justice, and he undoubtedly has
the capacity to influence the selection process of the position for
which the lady is a contender. So this sexual favor can be treated
quid pro quo, given the alleged audio content in the CD proved to be
authentic. In that case, the arguments supporting the privacy of a
person crumble like a house of cards.
However, this alleged sexual act could
have been an absolutely private affair if the lady in the CD would
not have any aspiration for a hugely respectable public position, and
moreover Singhvi hadn't been in an influential position in the
system. Rather not being tempted into character assassination of
Singhvi, the subject must be investigated in the light of public
interest. Both Singhvi and lady are equally responsible for
violating the due diligence selection procedure of a judge, which is
largely dependent on meritocracy, intellectual calibre, and other
fundamental human traits such as honesty and integrity.
The buck doesn't stop at the
resignation of Singhvi from all public positions, rather the lady
must also be investigated, and if proven guilty of influencing the
selection process through sexual favor must be barred from holding
any public position in future. Indeed, that's a matter of judicial enquiry; however, the fact remains that the people who give
lecture to public on right to privacy must not tread in the public
domain and complaint about their privacy being breached, rather they
should shun all public positions and do whatever they want to do in
their private life. That could be more sensible and safe charting.
Anyway, who does care about those people who don't have any
stake in public interest?
