The road to hell is paved with good intentions
Two young TV journalists, a few years out of journalism school, work under a demanding editor, who has impeccable but always-anonymous sources. They admire the gumption of their boss, but always live in fear. So when the editor asks them to carry out a sting operation, they respond with nervous pride that their boss, whom they lionise, has trusted them with a major assignment – they have to pretend they are representatives of a power firm and catch the minister in flagrante delicto as they hand him over six lakh rupees in hard cash. They are bubbling with excitement in front of each other, but deep within, both of them know they have been pushed off the deep end.
Battling crocodiles in the river
In his den, a much-harassed but much-elected politician steeples his finger and leans back into his chair as he orders his police aides into action. He has been tipped off by his network that due to the forthcoming elections at the centre, and to pull their flagging TRPs, a media channel has enlisted two tyros to “sting” him. It was not that he did not suspect it – the calls, when they started, always seemed slightly off, with too much of some details and too little of others. His had learned the hard way to rely on his instincts, and they were unerring in this instance as well. He would be ready, he thought with grim determination.
Alea jacta est
So, as matters transpired, Shreyas and Shwetha, pretending to be representatives of a power company, did indeed turn up at the residence of DK Shivakumar, Congress Minister of Karnataka for Energy, and offered him “gifts” and six lakh rupees. The duo have been arrested under Sections (9) and (15) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. And now the picture turns murky – the journalists have alleged assault at the hands of the Minister’s aides. And as the infamous phrase goes, the law shall take its course in due course of time.
The truth of allegations against the Minister in question are matters to be decided by courts. However, the means that the journalists used – sting operations – merit closer scrutiny, especially in the light of the anti-corruption hysteria that has been raised over the past two years coinciding with the meteoric rise of the Aam Aadmi Party. A sting operation fundamentally consists of a staged drama in which impostors try to coerce or entrap their target into committing a criminal act, either accepting bribes, such as this case, or more alarming cases such as allegations of the casting couch.
“The law is an ass”
As usual, there is no clear indication from Indian law. However, Indian courts often refer to international jurisdictions as well as previous cases since we are a common law jurisdiction. To that extent, some facts and basic definitions need to be considered –
First, sting operations are legal (Aniruddha Bahal v. State ( 2010 172 DLT 269)) and are accepted as evidence in courts of law (Pushpadevi M. Jatia v. M.L. Wadhawan (1987) 3 SCC 367). Moreover, the stinger is free from charges of abetting the crime in question – Aniruddha Bahal v. State also ruled that stingers cannot be held guilty under POCA, so it seems that the journalists can challenge that in court. However, there are no specific laws for protecting journalists conducting stings, and they remain open to charges of defamation.
Another distinction is drawn between legal and illegal entrapment – legal entrapment would be the situation where the act of corruption has been initiated before the entrapment, while illegal entrapment consists in initiating an act of corruption. The case at hand will therefore unequivocally fall under illegal entrapment, and this makes the two journalists “accomplices” in crime ((re M.S. Mohiddin AIR 1952 Madras 561, Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 322).
This is how simple and direct and internally consistent our legal system is – there is no clearly demarcated rule on sting operations. Is it unlikely that officials offered six lakh rupees will succumb? Six crores? A trip around the world? The guarantee of a Harvard education for their children? It is fine to take the moral high road and say that one will never and under no circumstance succumb to such temptation, but are we in such a gatekeeper capacity? One must be pragmatic – have we been in such situations over and over again, and under constrained finances otherwise? Let us ask ourselves how ethical or moral it might be to wave a slice of delicious cake in front of a person on a diet because of health reasons – is this temptation in itself ethical?
…and life goes on
TV editors do not perhaps consider such involved ethical dilemmas, possibly because of corporate interests that fairly ooze from news items these days. However, it does not and should not prevent us from at least contemplating this kind of technical hair-splitting or thought experiments – it helps in clearing up some ethical dilemmas that underpin a lot of legal decisions.
“But what about the case at hand!” you ask? Oh well – they might reach an out-of-court settlement. Or perhaps be victimized in various ways in custody as well as once out of it. The minister might get elected over and over again. We, as conscientious citizens, will do ourselves justice if we are always engaged in this kind of thinking all the while without getting lost in shrill debate driven by ideologically fixed positions.
Test Comment!