The demand by the Opposition for the resignation of a Union Minister over the alleged question paper leaks in competitive examinations raises an important question that goes far beyond the politics of the day—should ministers resign merely because the Opposition demands it, or should accountability be determined by evidence and constitutional propriety?
No civilized democracy can afford to trivialize either public accountability or due process. Both are equally important.
If a minister is found to have directly or indirectly facilitated corruption or criminal wrongdoing, he has absolutely no moral or constitutional right to continue in office. There can be no compromise on that principle. However, if resignation becomes the Opposition’s first demand even before a debate takes place, before evidence is placed on record, and before responsibility is established, then it creates a dangerous precedent for parliamentary democracy.
One must ask the Congress party a simple question. How many Education Ministers or Chief Ministers resigned when question paper leaks took place in Congress-ruled states? The answer, unfortunately, is difficult to find.
The country has witnessed numerous examination paper leaks over the decades under governments of different political dispensations. During one such controversy in Rajasthan under the Congress government, when several students were devastated and some reportedly took the extreme step of ending their lives, senior Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi had defended her party government by observing that paper leaks had become a national problem and that the then Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot was taking necessary measures to address the issue.
If that was the standard then, what has changed now? Why should the yardstick be different today?
Political consistency is also a constitutional virtue.
The Opposition cannot change goalposts depending upon whether it occupies the Treasury benches or sits across them. Accountability cannot become selective outrage.
The same question may also be asked of the self-styled “Cockroach Janata Party”, which emerged in the aftermath of the controversy surrounding remarks attributed to a Supreme Court judge about agitating youth. Ironically, neither its leadership nor many of its political supporters are students appearing for competitive examinations. Yet, they have sought to become the principal political face of the agitation.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with supporting students or demanding justice. Peaceful protest is a constitutional right of every Bharatiya citizen. Dissent strengthens democracy.
However, there is an equally important constitutional principle that is conveniently forgotten—that the right to free speech is not absolute and carries reasonable restrictions under law. Peaceful protest cannot become a license for violence, intimidation or inflammatory rhetoric.
If slogans threatening Nepal or Bangladesh-like violence are raised, if elected representatives are threatened, if there are calls that could be construed as incitement to mob action, then such conduct has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting students’ interests. No sincere student preparing for competitive examinations dreams of taking to the streets to threaten constitutional institutions. Their aspirations are much nobler—to succeed through merit and make their families and the nation proud.
Students deserve justice, not political appropriation.
That is precisely why legitimate demands must be separated from political demands.
If innocent students have suffered because of question paper leaks, they deserve compensation and institutional support. If police excesses have occurred, they must be investigated. If genuine students have been unnecessarily implicated, due legal safeguards must be extended to them. No government should hesitate to do justice to victims.
Those are legitimate demands in a constitutional democracy.
But demanding the resignation of a minister before fixing criminal or administrative responsibility is an altogether different proposition.
Parliament exists precisely for such debates. Let the Opposition present its evidence. Let the government answer uncomfortable questions. Let parliamentary scrutiny take its course. If clinching evidence emerges demonstrating ministerial complicity or gross negligence, resignation would become not merely desirable but inevitable.
Until then, demanding resignation amounts to pronouncing guilt before establishing responsibility.
Governments come and go, but precedents remain.
Today, it may be the Education Minister. Tomorrow, the Opposition may demand the resignation of the Home Minister, Finance Minister or Defence Minister merely because allegations have been made. Taken to its logical conclusion, every parliamentary session could become hostage to demands for resignations without evidence.
That would weaken parliamentary democracy rather than strengthen ministerial accountability.
The Modi government would therefore be well advised to distinguish between legitimate grievances and illegitimate political demands. Accept justice-oriented demands wherever warranted, engage the Opposition during parliamentary debates and ensure transparent investigations into every allegation.
However, resignation cannot become a political ritual performed at the Opposition’s convenience.
Finally, if there are allegations regarding foreign funding, extremist links or external attempts to exploit student unrest for political purposes—as has been alleged in certain quarters—they must neither be casually dismissed nor casually accepted. Such serious allegations require thorough investigation by competent agencies, and conclusions must be based entirely on evidence. Equally, if foreign nationals are found violating Bharatiya laws while participating in unlawful activities, they must be dealt with strictly in accordance with the law irrespective of diplomatic sensitivities.
Bharat’s constitutional democracy is strong enough to punish the guilty, protect the innocent and accommodate dissent without surrendering to political theatrics.
Ministerial accountability is non-negotiable. So too is due process.
The Modi government should reject demands for resignation that are unsupported by evidence, while remaining uncompromising in its commitment to justice, transparency and constitutional propriety. That alone would serve both democracy and the nation.
