“When the law no longer protects you from the corrupt, but protects the corrupt from you, you know the nation is doomed.”
State of Gujarat v. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah, 2020 SCC On Line SC
This stark warning finds disturbing resonance in contemporary India, where corruption has seeped deep into public life and institutions entrusted with constitutional governance. The Karnataka High Court’s judgment in Kailash S. Raj v. State of Karnataka, 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 42, confronts this reality head-on and sends a clear message: the law cannot become a shield for corruption.
Judicial Recognition of Pervasive Corruption
In paragraph 22 of the judgment, the High Court makes an unambiguous finding:
“Corruption has percolated to every nook and corner of public life in the country and has become an issue in all walks of life posing a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance.”
This is not rhetorical flourish. It is judicial acknowledgment of a systemic malaise one that threatens the very foundation of the rule of law. Corruption today does not appear in a single form; it mutates, disguises itself, and infiltrates administration, politics, and even regulatory mechanisms designed to prevent it.
Zero Tolerance Is Not a Slogan, It Is a Constitutional Necessity
The High Court rightly relied on the Supreme Court’s observations in State of Gujarat v. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah, where the apex court declared:
“Zero tolerance towards corruption should be the top-notch priority for ensuring system-based and policy-driven, transparent and responsive governance.”
The Supreme Court further acknowledged a hard truth corruption may not be entirely eradicated, but it can and must be strategically reduced through transparency, accountability, and the strengthening of moral and institutional integrity.
These are not optional ideals. They are constitutional imperatives flowing from Articles 14 and 21, which guarantee equality before law and dignified life. A corrupt system, protected by legal technicalities or misplaced judicial sympathy, hollows out these guarantees.
Law as a Sword Against Corruption Not a Shield for the Corrupt
The Karnataka High Court’s refusal to “spread a protective umbrella of law” over the petitioners is significant. Courts exist to protect constitutional rights, not vested interests. When legal remedies are misused to stall investigations, derail prosecutions, or sanitize manifest illegality, the justice system itself becomes complicit.
This is precisely the danger Ayn Rand warned against. A nation does not collapse only when laws are unjust; it collapses when just laws are selectively applied to protect the powerful and punish the powerless.
Corruption and Constitutional Governance Are Incompatible
Corruption strikes at the heart of constitutional governance. It converts public power into private profit, replaces merit with influence, and turns institutions meant to serve citizens into instruments of exploitation. When courts allow the law to be weaponized in favour of the corrupt, public faith in the judiciary erodes often irreversibly.
The Karnataka High Court’s judgment stands as a corrective reminder that judicial discretion must operate in service of constitutional morality, not expediency.
Conclusion: A Clear Line in the Sand
The message from the judgment is unmistakable:
- Corruption is a constitutional threat.
- Zero tolerance is not optional.
- Courts must refuse to protect those tainted by corruption under the guise of legal technicalities.
If the law ceases to protect honest citizens and instead becomes a refuge for the corrupt, the consequences are not merely legal they are civilizational.
The survival of a constitutional democracy depends not on how cleverly the law is argued, but on whom the law ultimately serves.
In Kailash S. Raj v. State of Karnataka, 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 42, it is ruled as under;
“22. It is beyond any cavil of doubt that corruption has percolated to every nook and corner of public life in the country and has become an issue in all walks of life posing a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance. Corruption emerges in various hues and forms and it is therefore, unfathomable.
Reference being made to a paragraph of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANSUKHBHAI KANJIBHAI SHAH in the circumstances would become apposite.
The Apex Court observes as follows:
“60. Zero tolerance towards corruption should be the top-notch priority for ensuring system based and policy driven, transparent and responsive governance. Corruption cannot be annihilated but strategically be dwindled by reducing monopoly and enabling transparency in decision-making. However, fortification of social and moral fabric must be an integral component of long-term policy for nation building to accomplish corruption free society.
(Emphasis supplied)
The observation of the Apex Court is germane to this case as well, as the entire facts narrated hereinabove are shrouded with corruption, on all the fours of the facts. In the teeth of the aforesaid facts, reference is being made to the writer and philosopher of the USA, Ayn Rand, who on corruption would say;
“When the law no longer protects you from the corrupt, but protects the corrupt from you, you know the nation is doomed.”
(Emphasis supplied)
It is therefore not the stage to spread a protective umbrella of law to the petitioners.”