Defending decisions

PM's unusually robust statement on coal is welcome

The robust defence by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of the assignment of coal mines in the Talabira blocks to Hindalco is an important step. Such defences have been few and far between in the second term of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA), and governance and decision making - as well as the prime minister's image - have suffered as a consequence. The furore was set off by the news last week that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), as part of its Supreme Court-supervised investigation into coal block allocations, had named Hindalco's non-executive chairman, Kumar Mangalam Birla, in a first information report dealing with the Talabira blocks. A former secretary in the coal ministry, P C Parakh, was also named; the CBI said that Hindalco had been given coal that a screening committee had earmarked for a public sector company and, thus, it was a matter to investigate. Mr Parakh argued that Hindalco was assigned the coal after it had made a persuasive case, and that if he was involved in a conspiracy to defraud the nation purely on the basis of overruling the screening committee, then so was the prime minister, who had held the coal portfolio at the time - a completely consistent and logical point of view. 

The Prime Minister's Office (PMO), over the weekend, released a detailed account of the timeline of the Talabira decision. The prime minister, said the release, is "satisfied that the final decision taken in this regard was entirely appropriate and is based on the merits of the case placed before him", and said that the investigation should take its "normal course before the law". The PMO's timeline listed the reasons why the decision to award the coal to Hindalco had been taken, including a request from the government of Odisha, as well as presentations from Mr Birla on the subject. Hindalco's plant would, it was argued, generate more employment and have more positive economic linkages. 

If that was all there is, and no illegal quid pro quo is discovered to have happened, then it does appear to have been a reasonable use of executive discretion. Unfortunately, such discretion has come under a cloud of late because of corruption concerns. However, such decisions are also frequently essential. In their absence, economies grind to a halt. And that is precisely what has happened, thanks to the UPA's unwillingness to defend the principles behind policy and administrative decisions in the past. Thus, the Talabira defence is welcome. Too often concerns about the unwarranted twisting of procedure have morphed into an attack on the discretionary procedures themselves. The government and the prime minister have let this unfortunate metamorphosis occur through their unwillingness to take a stand. Hopefully, this is changing - even if far too late in its term.