Category: COVER FEATURE:

Gandhiji had said: ‘Real Swaraj will come,
not by the acquisition of authority by a few, but by the acquisition of the
capacity by all to resist authority when it is abused. In other words, Swaraj
is to be attained by educating the masses to a sense of their capacity to
regulate and control authority.’ (Young India, 29-1-1925, p. 41.)

 

This Swaraj eluded India all these years
despite a very well drafted Constitution and a reasonably fair system of
elections. The average Indian citizen owns the government but did not get the
respect due to him. His simple demand for information of how and why the
government which governed in his name took actions was denied to him despite it
being recognised as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution. This was formally codified in the Right to Information Act, 2005
which is one of the progressive transparency laws in the world.

 

The biggest gain has been in empowering
individual citizens to translate the promise of ‘Democracy of the people, by
the people, for the people’ into a living reality. The law as framed by
Parliament has outstandingly codified this fundamental right of citizens. When
framing the law cognisance had been taken of various landmark decisions of the
Supreme Court on the subject. One of the objectives of this law mentioned in its
preamble is to contain corruption. It is a simple, easy to understand statute,
which common people can understand. However, there are some decisions of
information commissions and courts which are constricting this fundamental
right of citizens which is sanctioned neither by the Constitution nor by the
law. This article is an effort to highlight one such instance, the Girish
Ramchandra Deshpande judgement, which is resulting in an effective
illegal amendment of the law without Parliamentary sanction. The denial of
information has been justified on the basis of section 8(1)(j) which allows
denial of information, when:

 

(j) information which relates to personal
information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity
or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the
individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public
Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is
satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such
information:

 

Provided that the information, which cannot
be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any
person.

 

The RTI Act mandates that all citizens have
the right to information subject to the provisions of the Act. Section 7(1)
clearly states that information can only be refused for the reasons specified
in sections 8 and 9. Section 22 of the Act ensures that no prior laws or rules
can be used to deny information. I would also draw attention to the fact that
the reasonable restrictions which may be placed on the freedom of expression
under Article 19(1)(a) have been mentioned in Article 19(2) of the Constitution
as those affecting ‘the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India,
the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public
order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or
incitement to an offence.’

 

It is worth remembering two judgements of
the Supreme Court. A five-judge bench has ruled in P. Ramachandra Rao vs.
State of Karnataka case No. [appeal] (crl.) 535: ‘Courts can declare
the law, they can interpret the law, they can remove obvious lacunae and fill
the gaps but they cannot entrench upon in the field of legislation properly
meant for the legislature’. In Rajiv Singh Dalal (Dr.) vs. Chaudhari Devilal
University, Sirsa and another (2008), the Supreme Court, after
referring to its earlier decisions, has observed as follows: ‘The decision of a
Court is a precedent, if it lays down some principle of law supported by
reasons. Mere casual observations or directions without laying down any
principle of law and without giving reasons does not amount to a precedent.’

 

The Supreme Court’s judgement in the
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande¹ case is being treated as the law
throughout the country and I will argue that this has the effect of amending
section 8(1)(j) without legitimacy. This article
will seek to show that the impugned judgement does not lay down the law and is
being wrongly used to constrict the citizen’s fundamental right to information.

 

Girish Ramchandra Deshpande had sought
copies of memos, show cause notices and censure / punishment awarded to a
public servant. He had also demanded details of assets and gifts received by
him. Since the Central Information Commission gave an adverse ruling he finally
went to the Supreme Court. The main part of the judgement states:

 

‘12. The petitioner herein sought for
copies of all memos, show cause notices and censure / punishment awarded to the
third respondent from his employer and also details viz. movable and immovable properties
and also the details of his investments, lending and borrowing from banks and
other financial institutions. Further, he has also sought for the details of
gifts stated to have accepted by the third respondent, his family members and
friends and relatives at the marriage of his son. The information mostly sought
for finds a place in the income tax returns of the third respondent. The
question that has come up for consideration is whether the above-mentioned
information sought for qualifies to be “personal information” as defined in
clause (j) of section 8(1) of the RTI Act.

 

13. We are
in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by
the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show
cause notices and orders of censure / punishment etc. are qualified to be
personal information as defined in clause (j) of section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
The performance of an employee / officer in an organisation is primarily a
matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are
governed by the service rules which fall under the expression “personal
information”, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public
activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would
cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given
case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information
Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest
justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be
passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.

__________________________________

1   Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27734 of
2012; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Versus Cen. Information Commr. & Ors;
K.S. Radhakrishnan & Dipak Misra; 3^rd October, 2012; (2013) 1
SCC 212

 

 

 

14. The details disclosed by a person in
his income tax returns are “personal information” which stand exempted from
disclosure under clause (j) of section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a
larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State
Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the
larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.’

 

A careful reading of the RTI Act shows that
personal information held by a public authority may be denied under section
8(1)(j) under the following two circumstances:

(i) Where the information requested is
personal information and the nature of the information requested is such that
it has apparently no relationship to any public activity or interest; or

(ii) Where the
information requested is personal information and the disclosure of the said
information would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.

 

If the information is personal
information, it must be seen whether the information came to the public
authority as a consequence of a public activity.
Generally, most of the information in public records arises from a public
activity. Applying for a job or ration card are examples of public activity.
However, there may be some personal information which may be with public
authorities which is not a consequence of a public activity, e.g., medical
records or transactions with a public sector bank. Similarly, a public
authority may come into possession of some information during a raid or seizure
which may have no relationship to any public activity.

 

Even if the information has arisen by a
public activity it could still be exempt if disclosing it would be an
unwarranted invasion on the privacy of an individual. Privacy is to do with
matters within a home, a person’s body, sexual preferences, etc., as mentioned
in the Apex Court’s earlier decisions in Kharak Singh and R. Rajagopal
cases. This is in line with Article 19(2) which mentions placing restrictions
on Article 19(1)(a) in the interest of ‘decency or morality’. If, however, it
is felt that the information is not the result of any public activity or
disclosing it would be an unwarranted invasion on the privacy of an individual,
it must be subjected to the acid test of the proviso: Provided that the
information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature
shall not be denied to any person.

 

The proviso is meant as a test which must be
applied before denying information claiming exemption under section 8(1)(j).
Public servants have been used to answering questions raised in Parliament and
the Legislature. It is difficult for them to develop the attitude of answering
demands for information from citizens. Hence, before denying personal
information, the law has given an acid test: Would they deny this information
to the elected representatives? If they come to the subjective assessment that
they would provide the information to MPs and MLAs they will have to provide it
to citizens, since the MPs and MLAs derive legitimacy from the citizens.

 

Another perspective is that personal
information is to be denied to citizens based on the presumption that disclosure
would cause harm to some interest of an individual.
If, however, the information can be given to the legislature it means the
likely harm is not very serious, since what is given to the legislature will be
in public domain. It is worth remembering that the first draft of the bill
which had been presented to the Parliament in December, 2004 had the provision
as section 8(2) and stated: (2) Information which cannot be denied to
Parliament or Legislature of a State, as the case may be, shall not be denied
to any person. In the final draft passed by Parliament in May, 2005, this
section was put as a proviso only for section 8(1)(j). Thus, it was a conscious
choice of Parliament to have this as a proviso only for section 8(1)(j). It is
necessary that when information is denied based on the provision of section
8(1)(j), the person denying the information must give his subjective assessment
that he would deny it to Parliament or State Legislature if sought.

 

It is worth noting that in the Privacy Bill,
2014 it was proposed that sensitive personal data should be defined as personal
data relating to:

 

‘(a) physical and mental health, including
medical history, (b) biometric, bodily or genetic information, (c) criminal
convictions, (d) password, (e) banking credit and financial data, (f) narco
analysis or polygraph test data, (g) sexual orientation. Provided that any
information that is freely available or accessible in public domain or to be
furnished under the Right to Information Act, 2005 or any other law for time being
in force shall not be regarded as sensitive personal data for the purposes of
this Act’.

 

Only if a reasoned conclusion is reached
that the information has no relationship to any public activity or that
disclosure would be an unwarranted invasion on the privacy of an individual, a
subjective assessment has to be made whether it would be given to Parliament or
State Legislature. If it is felt that it would not be given, then an assessment
has to be made under section 8(2) whether there is a larger public interest in
disclosure than the harm to the protected interest. If no exemption applies,
there is no requirement of showing a larger public interest.

 

In the impugned judgement, an RTI request
for copies of all memos, show cause notices, orders of censure / punishment,
assets, income tax returns, details of gifts received, etc. of a public servant
was denied. The Court has ruled without giving any legal arguments merely by
saying that this is personal information as defined in clause (j) of section
8(1) of the RTI Act and hence exempted. It must be noted that the law does not
exempt all personal information. The only reason ascribed in this decision is
that the Court agrees with the Central Information Commission’s decision. Such
a decision does not form a precedent which must be followed. It cannot be
justified by Article 19(2) of the Constitution or by the complete provision of
section 8(1)(j). As per the RTI Act denial of information can only be on the
basis of the exemptions in the law. The Court has denied information by reading
section 8(1)(j) as exempting:

 

‘information which relates to personal
information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public
activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy
of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the
State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may
be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of
such information’.

Provided
that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State
Legislature shall not be denied to any person.”

 

There are no words in the judgement, or the
CIC decision which it has accepted, discussing whether the disclosure has any
relationship to a public activity, or if disclosure would be an unwarranted
invasion on the privacy. The words which have been struck above have not been
considered at all and information was denied merely on the basis that it was
personal information. Worse still, the proviso ‘Provided that the
information…..’ (underlined above) has not even been mentioned and while
quoting section 8(1)(j) the proviso has been missed. Effectively, only 40 of
the 87 words in this section were considered.

 

The Supreme Court judgement in the ADR
/ PUCL Civil Appeal 7178 of 2001 has laid down that
citizens have a right to know about the assets of those who want to be public
servants (stand for elections). It should be obvious that if citizens have a
right to know about the assets of those who want to become public servants,
their right to get information about those who are public servants
cannot be lesser. This would be tantamount to arguing that a prospective groom
must declare certain matters to his wife-to-be, but after marriage the same
information need not be disclosed!

 

The Girish Ramchandra Deshpande
judgement should not be treated as a precedent for the following reasons:

 

(i)    It is devoid of any detailed reasoning and
does not lay down a ratio;

(ii)    It does not analyse whether a public servant’s
work and assets is information which is a public activity or not. The judgement
when stating that certain matters are between the employee and the employer
misses the fact that the employer is the ‘people of India’;

(iii)   It has completely forgotten the proviso to
section 8(1)(j) which requires subjecting a proposed denial to this acid test;

(iv)   It has not considered the clear ratio of the Rajagopal
judgement or the ADR / PUCL judgement

(v)   This became the most commonly used exemption.
In R.K. Jain vs. Union of India JT 2013 (10) SC 430 this was
reiterated when denying information about the comments on the integrity of an
official by the Chairman of CESTAT. This referred to the Girish Deshpande
judgement enthusiastically and held it as a precedent. Subsequently, in Canara
Bank vs. C.S. Shyam, civil appeal No. 22 of 2009 the
Supreme Court refused names and details of officials transferred holding this
as personal information and quoting the Girish Deshpande judgement.
Effectively, the law has been amended and most information which relates to a
natural person, and can be called personal, is being denied. This conceals
corruption, protects people who have submitted false bills or certificates. It
is also helpful to ensure that fictitious beneficiaries of various schemes
cannot be caught. The law’s objective of curbing corruption is being defeated;

(vi) Across the
country, information about MLA funds expenditure, officers’ leave, caste
certificates, file notings, educational degrees, beneficiaries of subsidies and
much more are being denied. Many PIOs are denying information which may have
the name of a person claiming it is personal information.

 

A major provision of the RTI Act has been
amended by a judicial pronouncement which appears to be flawed. It is also
violating Article 19(2) of the Constitution. A major tool of citizens to bring
the shenanigans, arbitrary and corrupt acts of public servants has been
affected adversely without a proper reasoning. Commissioners and the legal
profession must discuss this and it must be recognised that Girish
Ramchandra Deshpande does not lay down the law on section
8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and is contrary to the ratio of the R. Rajagopal
and ADR judgements. However, the Girish Ramchandra
Deshpande judgement has been treated as a precedent in two subsequent
Supreme Court judgements and is being used to deny most information which can
be related to a natural person. This has become the most commonly used
exemption.

 

PIOs and
Information Commissioners are using this widely to deny all information which
relates to any person and the Right To Information Act is being subverted and
illegally converted into Right to Denial of Information. Section 8(1)(j) is
being converted into an omnibus exemption which can be used to deny most
information. This will
be a very unfortunate regression for citizens’ fundamental right and would
greatly curb their power to get accountability and curb corruption.

 

The nation must
discuss this illegal and unconstitutional curtailment of our fundamental right
and create a strong public opinion for its restoration.

 

It is true that
quite a few decisions or stands taken by Gandhiji on certain points proved
highly controversial. Some of his views became the subject matter of severe
criticism; so much so that it eventually resulted in his unfortunate
assassination. After all, every coin has two sides. However, the fact remains
that no one questioned his integrity and honest intentions for the good of our
country.

 

In this article, I will attempt to enumerate
a few of his principles with reference to the conduct of our CA profession. I
compliment the Editor for choosing this very important topic and thank him for
giving me the opportunity to express my views on it.

 

We are in kaliyug and violating,
circumventing or crushing good principles has become the rule of the day. In
fact, that is the very essence of kaliyug.

 

God was particularly kind to this country
that he gave us so many towering personalities during our fight for freedom –
Lokmanya Tilak, Veer Savarkar, Mahatma Gandhi, Vallabhbhai Patel, Subhash
Chandra Bose, Lala Lajpatrai, Bhagat Singh, Rabindranath Tagore, Swami
Vivekananda and hundreds of others in different walks of life. Hardly any other
country would be so blessed. Despite this, unfortunately, we remained poor and
weak in almost every respect. The reason is that the level of the society or a
country depends on the level of the common citizen. These personalities
received not only praise and respect but they were literally revered and
worshipped. However, they were not followed in letter and spirit in day-to-day life. Mahatma Gandhi remained only on the walls of government
offices and courts; and also on currency notes! He was never given a place in
our hearts. The politicians merely used his name for their selfish motives.
Thus, he was physically assassinated only once, but he is now being killed
every day. We CAs are an integral part of the society and I proceed to examine
whether CAs were also a party to this every-day assassination, or they were an
exception to the general rule. I have selected only a few of Gandhiji’s
principles.

 

TRUTH

The two great values cherished and professed
by Mahatmaji were Truth and Non-violence. Truth was supreme. Even his
autobiography is titled My Experiments with Truth. Truth was dearest to
his heart. Not that he never deviated from the truth, but he had the courage to
confess whenever and wherever he felt that he had deviated. This is his real
greatness.

 

After all, no one is infallible.

 

We CAs, unlike lawyers, are intimately
connected with Truth. Our core function in the profession is to attest the
financial position as ‘True and Fair’. I leave it to the conscience (and
introspection) of every reader of this article as to how many times we have
deviated from this principle. It is not only an ethical principle, but it is
our statutory obligation.

 

Here, I would pause a little to discuss
briefly our Code of Ethics. The motto of our Institute, as recommended by Maharshi
Aurobindo is ‘ya Esha Supteshu Jagarti’. It was adopted from the Kathopanishad.
A CA should be the one who is expected to be awake when the world around is
asleep. Symbolically, Truth is ‘light’ (day) and Untruth is ‘darkness’ (night).
Thus, our very motto and vision as well mission is to pursue the Truth.

 

In my opinion, the edifice of our entire
Code of Ethics is the three messages given by the ancient Gurus to their
disciples (shishyas). These are enshrined in the Taittireeya
Upanishad.

Satyam Vada – Speak the Truth

Dharmam Chara. Pursue the eternal principles of righteousness
(religion means one’s duty; and not the worship)

Swadhyayan ma pramadah!

Never commit any default in studies or in
updating of knowledge.

 

This is nothing but our CPE.

 

Against this, what is commonly observed is
that we not only overlook the untrue things but often become a party to the
creation of false things and certify them to be true. Forget the big scams
where CAs’ active role was exposed, many of the scams were masterminded by the
CAs; but even on day-to-day basis we consciously sideline this principle.

 

All of us are so familiar with this that the
point hardly needs any elaboration.

 

NON-VIOLENCE

The second principle dearest to his heart
was non-violence. By non-violence I do not mean merely physical non-violence.
We may not beat or assault any one, or kill any one. We may not torture any
one, or cause injury to any one at the physical level. But indirectly, we may
either overlook or connive at such behaviour, or run away from it. There may be
a few CAs who may be indirectly helping or supporting such acts. Thus, there
are many underworld people, or criminals, or even ‘politicians’ with criminal
inclinations, or traders, or manufacturers engaged in or aiding violence.

 

I know a CA, a practicing Jain, refused to
do the work of a slaughter house. I don’t mean to suggest that no CA should
render service to such a business so long as it is a socially accepted and
lawful business. It was only an indicative observation. At the same time, a CA
should use discretion in selecting a client and have the courage to say ‘No’ to
certain types of clients.

 

SELF-RESPECT

Gandhiji’s struggle against humiliating
treatment in South Africa is well known. In fact, that was his debut in public
life. That made him a leader.

 

Today, CAs receive humiliating treatment
from government, bureaucrats and even clients. They are taken for granted by
all these people. Politicians make even public statements against the whole
profession. But we have no courage to raise our voice against such humiliation.
We are not assertive. We cannot put our foot down on the nonsensical things. We
have made our signature very cheap. Many of the CAs do not themselves keep the
respect of their own signature, then why and how will others respect it?

 

One of the reputed agencies had expressly
notified in one of their documents, ‘Please avoid bringing Chartered
Accountants’ certificates as the same are often found unreliable!’  No one pulled them into the court of law
for this.

 

The manner in which we go begging to the
Finance Minister every year for extension of due date is indeed very
humiliating. Government should understand that this is a chronic or systemic
problem and not the fault or inefficiency of CAs. We are not capable of making
strong and assertive representations but we merely beg mildly. Lawyers for
flimsy grounds have the audacity (or courage?) to boycott the proceedings of
the court.

 

Even transporters are so organised that they
make the government bend in their favour. We, as a profession, never show this
kind of strength of unity and collective action. The reason may be that we are
not perceived to be indispensable.

 

CHARACTER

By character I do not mean merely moral
character in a physical sense. Character is the result of honesty and
integrity. Courage comes out of this character. It is well said: ‘If one salutes
oneself, one need not salute anyone; but if one pollutes oneself, one has to
salute everyone!’

 

We blame bureaucrats and police personnel
for corruption. Unfortunately, we feel that corruption means only bribery.
Actually, the worst form of corruption is corruption of thoughts – our evil
thoughts. If we observe, when we come across any law or regulation many of us
first think of loopholes. We always think of ways and means to bypass it.
Often, our profession is perceived as the one that ‘manages’ everything.

 

Even our mandatory CPE hours many CAs try to
‘manage’ by hook or by crook. This is nothing but corruption. We CAs are
financial ‘police’. Had we performed our duty consciously, the extent of
financial scandals or debacles could have been minimised. But audit as a
function was never taken in its true spirit or with enough stringency by many.
It was seen either as mere compliance or even as a ‘tool’ to get loans from
banks. Accepting fees without doing justice to the audit is also corruption.

 

Gandhiji did propagate defiance of ‘black
law’ or unjust law. But that was an open and transparent movement against the
Britishers in the interest of the country. It was not meant for achieving
anybody’s selfish, vested interests. Unfortunately, even our judicial system
also never understood and performed its role meaningfully. Both the principles
of judicial system, viz., ‘justice delayed is justice denied’ and ‘justice
hurried is justice buried’, are violated conspicuously every day. CAs and the
legal profession are sister professions and both the ‘sisters’ have often
worked hand-in-hand in dismantling or crushing the very foundation and purpose
of the respective professions. This is the tragedy and we have no courage to
speak against it. We take pride in playing with words and crippling the system
by any means without any scruples.

 

PATRIOTISM AND NATIONAL
SPIRIT

Winston Churchill, who is responsible for
deaths of several million Indians, had observed, ‘India is not a nation, but
only a population!’ The question is — Do we represent our national character?
CAs are supposed to provide intellectual leadership to the society. Gandhiji
had the courage to swim against the flow. We are not only swimming with the
flow, but often remain in the forefront. Examples are plenty if we study all
the scams that have occurred so far. The intellectual class often ridicules the
concepts like patriotism. We have to ask ourselves how do we display a national
spirit?

 

When there was burning and communal violence
in Noakhali, Gandhiji had the courage to go there alone and observe a fast for
peace.

 

LEADERSHIP

CAs are rarely perceived as thought leaders.
You hardly come across any CA who is influencing opinion in society or of the
common man. Have we ever attempted to influence or mould the thinking of our
clients? We always ‘follow’ the clients’ thoughts. A leader has to be
‘proactive’. Why are we always reactive?

 

Thus, if any new regulation is proposed in
bill form – be it by government or by our Institute – we seldom study it from
the point of view of creating public opinion for or against it. Do we bother or
even push enough to give our suggestions and express our apprehensions
effectively at the right forum and at the right time?

 

 

I firmly believe that our country has the
real inherent expertise in the accounting field. Unfortunately, non-Indians are
dominating the scene. Many of the so-called accounting standards may lack
logic, purpose or consistency. They may not be relevant in the Indian context.
We only keep criticising them but accept them with a ‘slave’s mindset’. The few
firms who have vested interests in thrusting these regulations on us attract
our talented members by offering hefty packages. In our fight for freedom, many
intellectuals consciously remained away from the attractive jobs offered by the
British government. Today, our intelligent CAs are tolerating the stressful if
not torturous treatment in these so-called ‘professional firms’ who are doing
nothing but ‘business’ in an unscrupulous and unfair manner.

 

Gandhiji in his newspaper ‘Harijan’
influenced and moulded public opinion into the desired channel for the benefit
of the society and the country. How many CAs are into journalism doing such a
job? On TV channels, when there are discussions or debates on social or national
issues, the presence of CAs among expert panellists is conspicuous by its
absence – meaning, CAs are never perceived as social leaders! Are we not
concerned with social and national issues?

 

SIMPLICITY

Simplicity should not be merely a ‘style’,
it should be a way of life. One can be essentially simple. Simplicity is
expressed in thinking, writing, expressing and all aspects of living. Is there
real simplicity in drafting of our regulations or pronouncements? Is there
enough clarity? Is there enough truth and forthrightness? Are we either
offensive or defensive? We find that all such texts are full of ambiguity. It
is our duty to compel the concerned persons to make it simple.

 

We often see very pompous and showy offices
of CAs. For a professional a reasonably decent office set-up is sufficient. But
in the craze of showmanship, many professionals compromise on principles. In
the process they also move away from nature in their day-to-day life. Many CAs
work as ‘brokers’ quite contrary to the principles of Gandhiji.

 

LOVE FOR INDEPENDENCE

Gandhiji staked
his entire life for the freedom of the country. He fought for independence. Are
CAs really independent in their profession? If our client pays the fees for his
own audit, can we really afford to be independent? It is an obvious conflict of
interest. In our Code of Ethics there are items of misconduct based on the
‘conflict of interest’. When there is no effective independence in attest
function, the foundation of the profession itself gets crippled. All
complicated regulatory measures are of no use.

 

SENSE OF JUSTICE

Gandhiji fought injustice. When he started
practising as a lawyer, he was particular in accepting only those cases where
he believed that the truth was on his client’s side. He used to verify it
first. If at a later date his client turned out to be false, he used to give up
the brief. Do we have the courage to do such a thing? The business assessees
for whom we fight tooth and nail with the tax department – are they really on
the right side of the law? What are we shielding by using the best of our
professional skills?

 

CONCLUSION

Readers may wonder why I am so critical or
sceptical about the situation. Actually, the entire society is behaving more or
less in the same manner – that is, against the principles cherished and taught
by Gandhiji and other towering personalities. In fact, I see that there is a
lot of hypocrisy all around. In our motto, the CA profession has been equated
with the ultimate Truth – the Brahman or the Atman. But in
reality? The less said the better. For that matter, all the professions have
failed and succumbed to the pressure of kaliyug.

 

I have no particular grudge against the CA
profession as such. The observations made in this article would apply with
equal force more or less to all professions and occupations. In my humble
opinion, CAs have proved no exception to the general conditions of kaliyug.

 

However, CAs have the capability and
training to look through and see what is happening, the direction in which
things are headed and also future implications.

 

The only remedy is to remember the real
heroes this country had produced a few decades ago and follow their path
consciously and religiously. Even when the situation looks bleak, when we look
at Bapu’s life we see that he stood for what he believed to be true even
if it meant to stand alone. This reflection and marching towards finding what
is true should be our dandi march towards restoration of values
in each of our circles of influence.

 

The author is former Vice-Chancellor of
Gujarat Vidyapith, Ahmedabad, a university founded by Gandhiji in 1920, and is
engaged in charitable works in rural areas.

 

Humanity in general has been optimistic and
so it should be. However, there have been times when all has not been well and
the business as usual approach can and has landed the humanity in deep crisis.
In the distant past, most crises have arisen due to natural calamities. In
recent times, however, many of the crises have been man-made. A seemingly major
crisis has hit the humanity today. It is the deepening environmental and
ecological crisis. The intense desire of human beings to control nature and
exponentially increase the materialistic living are said to have led to the
present crisis. In the context of our country the nature of the crisis is the
same. The impact is so hard that our socio-cultural values at society level and
ethical values at individual level have gradually been vanishing. In totality,
one can see the crisis arising due to the irresponsible and often irreversible
behaviour of most of us. In our cultural parlance there is serious disturbance
and discord between Vyakti (Individual), Samashti (Universe) and Prakruti
(Nature).

 

Gandhiji understood the problem and offered
a solution with potential to restore and perhaps build harmony among vyakti,
samashti and prakruti. In case of India, the immediate crisis is
related to character. Gandhiji’s life was his message and was about continuous
character-building, a process that was initiated from childhood. With his
departure his message was conveniently forgotten. The result is that people
with character and integrity are at a premium both in public and private lives.
Unethical means in business have become the norm rather than the exception. In
fact, the world over the business management schools are trying to introduce
ethics and spirituality courses in the curricula. Recently, a Bench headed by the
then Chief Justice of India gave a judgement with regard to the Vyapam case in
Madhya Pradesh where the students were admitted to medical college fraudulently
and had completed the course. Upon disqualification, they had filed a petition.
The judgement read, ‘If we desire to build (our) nation on the touchstone of
ethics and character, and if our determined goal is to build a nation where
only rule of law prevails, then we cannot accept the claim of appellants
(students) for suggested social gains (by allowing them to keep the degrees on
the condition of doing social service free of cost for some years)’. This is
just one illustration of many in the country.

 

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi transformed his
persona to a level that earned him the title of Mahatma. The process of
transformation began from a very early age. Mohan’s regard for service began
with service of his parents and later turned into service of humanity. Watching
a play of Harishchandra, he wrote, ‘To follow the truth and to go
through all the ordeals Harishchandra went through was the one ideal it
inspired in me”. Truth and honesty got engraved permanently on the young
Mohandas’s mind and changed his personality completely in the years to come. At
a young age he learned three aspects of improving the self: Sveekruti –
acknowledgement, Pashchatap – repentance, and Prayashchit –
willingness to accept punishment for wrong-doing. He also thought that it was
possible for others to do the same; he expected that every individual should,
indeed, do so. As a student in England he remained faithful to the oath he made
to his mother not to touch wine, woman and meat. His resolve to being truthful
and honest under the most trying circumstances helped him to acquire a strong
self-discipline.

 

By the age of twenty five years, young
Gandhi had accepted and had become a staunch practitioner of honesty, truth and
non-violence. Gandhi firmly internalised the value of firm resistance with
self-suffering in the situations of injustice and exploitation rather than inflicting
injury and violence to the perpetrator. It was this Gandhi who went on to
lead the South Africa Satyagraha between 1896 and 1914 and after that
became the central figure in India’s fight for Independence. Gandhi fought for
his liberty and freedom and for the freedom of communities by using non-violent
protest – Satyagraha. Self-discipline is what is needed in order to be a
Satyagrahi for fighting for one’s own liberty and freedom, and for
serving the society and its causes. Once he practised being a truthful Satyagrahi,
he suggested others to try it.

 

He gave eleven vows or Mahavrats. 1. Satya – Truth, 2. Ahimsa or Love, 3. Brahmacharya
or Chastity / Control, 4. Aswada – Control of the Palate, 5. Asteya
– Non-Stealing, 6. Aparigraha – Non-Possession, 7. Abhaya –
Fearlessness, 8. Sprushya bhavana – Removal of Untouchability, 9. Shareera
Shrama – Bread Labour, 10. Sarvadharma Samabhava – Tolerance:
Respect of all Religions, 11. Swadeshi – Use of Products Made in India.
This is practical idealism as we shall see. (All these eleven vows can be
adopted by a Gruhastha.) This is the key for character-building and we
should take the core values and start the work at all ages with special
emphasis on education of children in the country.

 

The second point is about the environmental
and ecological crisis. Gandhiji had anticipated today’s problem in 1909 in his
small treatise Hind Swaraj. His criticism of the modern civilization was
the following:

 

‘Let us first consider what state of
things is described by the word “civilization”. Its true test lies in the fact
that people living in it make bodily welfare the object of life… The people of
Europe today live in better-built houses than they did a hundred years ago.
This is considered an emblem of civilization and this is also a matter to
promote bodily happiness. Formerly, they wore skins and used spears as their
weapons. Now, they wear long trousers, and, for embellishing their bodies, they
wear a variety of clothing and, instead of spears, they carry with them
revolvers containing five or more chambers. If people of a certain country, who
have hitherto not been in the habit of wearing much clothing, boots, etc.,
adopt European clothing, they are supposed to have become civilized out of
savagery… Men will not need the use of their hands and feet. They will press a
button, and they will have their clothing by their side. They will press
another button, and they will have their newspaper. A third and a motor-car
will be in waiting for them. They will have a variety of delicately dished up
food. Everything will be done by machinery. Formerly, when people wanted to
fight with one another, they measured between them their bodily strength; now
it is possible to take away thousands of lives by one man working behind a gun
from a hill. This is civilization.’

 

Indeed, it all applies to the India of
today. The industrial revolution is all about material production to meet
material needs. Science led to technologies and technologies largely produced
material comfort. Information technology in the beginning showed some potential
to be an equalizer, but soon went into the same control lines – in the hands of
few powerful people with money and power. Protestant Ethics had justified the
‘this worldly affairs’, especially creating material wealth for family and
society to live comfortably as divine. And free market was the best agency
which would provide equal opportunity to all, thus simultaneously optimising
individual and social welfare. It was presumed that the civil society that
would result out of such protestant values would be virtuous. The virtue of
civil society, if left to its own devices, were said to include good character,
honesty, duty, self-sacrifice, honour, service, self-discipline, tolerance,
respect, justice, civility, fortitude, courage, integrity, diligence,
patriotism, consideration for others, thrift and reverence.

 

 

But as capitalism flourished the Protestant
values gave way. Gluttony, pride, selfishness and greed became prominent. These
are precisely the Christian sins. Communist society could do no better than the
Orwellian phrase ‘some are more equal than others’! The modern economic
progress has increased the tension among the nations. Human footprint is
dangerously self-destroying. Conflicts within and between the countries and
military violence and killings are said to have been more than the total loss
that occurred during the Second World War.

 

Like the West celebrates individual liberty,
Gandhiji too upholds individual liberty but with responsibility to self, fellow
humans and nature. The individual and societal efforts have to be mended and
mentored in a way where vyakti’s interface with samashti is
harmonious; every vyakti is an essential part of the processes in samashti.
However, vyakti’s mind-set in interacting with samashti and prakruti
has to be the following:

 

Ishavasyam
idam sarvam Yatkinchit Jagatyam Jagat;

Ten
tyaktena bhunjitha maa grudha kasya swid dhanam

 

Whatever there
is changeful in this ephemeral world, all that must be enveloped by the Lord.
By this renunciation (of the world), support yourself. Do not covet the wealth
of any one.

 

With
advancements in science and technology as well as human achievements, nature
has to be treated with respect and humanity must not cancel tomorrow. Although
individual freedom is the ultimate goal, humanity needs to go on the Gandhian
way of education for freedom. Gandhiji himself was a learner till the last day
of his life. His kind of education that would inform / influence the
preferences and choices of individuals was not only confined to Indians, but
also to world citizens. The resultant position would not be that of pursuing
limitless wants. It is imperative that the desire to acquire more and more
should decline. The era of equality of rights and opportunities can then be
established. If people adopt the eleven vows listed earlier, harmony and
‘equality of rights and opportunities’ are possible globally. With practise of
the vows, the relationship between humans and nature would alter, averting the
ecological crisis. When vyakti (individual) changes and becomes
responsible and focuses on development of inner self, peace will evolve in samashti
(universe) and harmony with prakruti (nature) will return. Gandhi
beckons.

 

Government

Good government is no substitute for
self-government. Men often become what they believe themselves to be. If I
believe I cannot do something, it makes me incapable of doing it. But when I
believe I can, then I acquire the ability to do it even if I didn’t have it in
the beginning. Corruption and hypocrisy ought not to be inevitable products of
democracy, as they undoubtedly are today.

 

Finding yourself

The best way to find yourself is to lose
yourself in the service of others.

 

Action

It’s the action, not the fruit of the
action, that’s important. You have to do the right thing. It may not be in your
power, may not be in your time, that there’ll be any fruit. But that doesn’t
mean you stop doing the right thing. You may never know what results come from
your action. But if you do nothing, there will be no result.

 

Democracy

Democracy demands patient instruction on it
before legislation.

 

My notion of democracy is that under it the
weakest should have the same opportunity as the strongest.

 

People in a democracy should be satisfied
with drawing the government’s attention to a mistake, if any.

 

In true democracy every man and woman is
taught to think for himself or herself.

 

Happiness

Happiness is when what you think, what you
say, and what you do are in harmony.

 

Change

You must be the change you wish to see in
the world.

 

Non-violence

Non-violence is the greatest force at the
disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction
devised by the ingenuity of man.

 

Whenever you are confronted with an
opponent, conquer him with love…Non-violence is a weapon of the strong…Strength
does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.

 

Schools

All our national schools ought to be
converted into factories of our national ammunition, namely, constructive work.

 

The Lawyer

I had learnt the true practice of law. I had
learnt to find out the better side of human nature and to enter men’s hearts. I
realized the true function of a lawyer was to unite parties riven asunder.

Renunciation

Again, let no one consider renunciation to
mean want of fruit for the renouncer. The Gita reading does not warrant such a
meaning. Renunciation means absence of hankering after fruit. As a matter of
fact, he who renounces reaps a thousandfold. The renunciation of the Gita is
the acid test of faith. He who is ever brooding over result often loses nerve
in the performance of his duty.

 

Swaraj

Swaraj of a
people means the sum total of the Swaraj (self-rule) of individuals.

It is Swaraj when we learn to rule
ourselves.

Conservation of national sanitation is Swaraj
work and it may not be postponed for a single day on any consideration
whatsoever.

The get rid of the infatuation for English
is one of the essentials of Swaraj.

 

Swadeshi

I must not serve a distant neighbour at the
expense of the nearest.

India must protect her primary industries
even as a mother protects her children against the whole world without being
hostile to it.

 

Success

A burning passion coupled with absolute
detachment is the key to all success.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at
you, then they fight you, then you win.

 

Triumph

Man’s triumph will consist in substituting
the struggle for existence by a struggle for mutual service.

 

State

The state is the sum total of the sacrifice,
on its behalf, of its members.

 

One of the last Notes left by Gandhiji in
1948

I will give you a talisman. Whenever you are
in doubt, or when the self becomes too much with you, apply the following test.
Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man [woman] whom you may have
seen, and ask yourself, if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use
to him [her]. Will he [she] gain anything by it? Will it restore him [her] to a
control over his [her] own life and destiny? In other words, will it lead to swaraj
[freedom] for the hungry and spiritually starving millions? Then you will find
your doubts and your self melt away.

 

Journalism & Role of Newspaper

The newspaperman has become a walking
plague. He spreads the contagion of lies and calumnies.

 

One of the objects of a newspaper is to
understand popular feeling and to give expression to it; another is to arouse
among the people certain desirable sentiments; and the third is fearlessly to
expose popular defects.

 

Justice

Justice should become cheap and expeditious.
Today it is the luxury of the rich and the joy of the gambler.

 

Truth

Truth and untruth often co-exist; good and
evil often are found together.

 

Devotion to Truth is the sole justification
for our existence.

 

When you want to find Truth as God, the only
inevitable means is love, that is non-violence.

 

Ahimsa and
Truth are so intertwined that it is practically impossible to disentangle and
separate them.