The directive by the North Goa Sessions Court to register an FIR into bribery allegations made by former minister Pandurang Madkaikar in early March this year raises several critical questions. Here is the background: Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and former minister Pandurang Madkaikar had said on video that a minister forced him to pay ₹15-20 lakh bribe but stopped short of naming anyone. “Nothing is moving. They are only busy counting money. All ministers are busy counting money. Nothing is happening in Goa,” Madkaikar had charged the ruling dispensation. The ex-minister later retracted his statements and said he referred to a penalty payment rather than a bribe.
Now, this is what the court observed on Monday: The complainants had reason to be concerned over such public statements being made and later withdrawn. “The applicants here are more concerned because making such statements and thereafter going back on the said statements is not in the public interest as there is every possibility that the public at large may be misguided. Whether the statements were made correctly or wrongly ought to have been decided after registering the FIR. The statements made by Madkaikar show that a huge amount is required to be paid as a bribe to clear the files.”
While the court’s decision highlights the importance of transparency and accountability, it also exposes underlying issues regarding the handling of corruption charges against political figures and the integrity of investigative processes. The court’s emphasis on the viral video as enough material to initiate a formal investigation may come as a surprise, but the police are duty-bound to study the material and conclude whether the content is genuine or fabricated, based on which it should have acted. In the current case, there is nothing to suggest that the video is fake or ‘doctored’ and hence by normal protocol, the police should have proceeded with an FIR.
One cannot be so naive not to understand what Madkaikar was saying. Madkaikar’s subsequent claim that his statement referred to official payment rather than bribery falls flat and contrasts sharply against the original narrative. His original remarks should have stood as evidence, regardless. Moreover, there was a need to evaluate the reliability of statements that were withdrawn or modified.
There has been something amiss in the investigative procedures because the Anti-Corruption Bureau decided to close the inquiry based on the absence of evidence. These are pointed statements that have far-reaching consequences in public life. If an influential person has to pay huge sums to move his file, what about common citizens? And what about legitimate processes?
The ACB’s closure of the case, citing lack of evidence, contrasts with the court’s insistence on registering an FIR. This indicates systemic shortcomings in anti-corruption mechanisms and points to the fact that current investigative frameworks are not equipped to handle complex allegations of corruption effectively. As stated by the court, there should have been an FIR followed by a probe.
While the court’s directive aims to uphold justice and transparency, it also prompts us to critically examine the processes, evidentiary standards, and the need to uphold the integrity of investigating agencies. The fight against corruption would be hollow when there are gaps and disparities in the probe.
