THE LOKAYUKT Bill will be coming up for discussion and passing during the current Assembly session. The Bill is nothing but a paper tiger, which cannot be used to impose effective punishment on any corrupt public functionary, laments ARAVIND BHATIKAR

IN JULY 2003 I had published two articles on the Bill, in the local daily examining the relevant provisions and suggesting amendments to make the Bill more effective. The Bill will replace the Public Men’s Corruption (Investigation and Inquiries) Act 1988. Generally speaking, amendments to existing laws or new legislations to replace the old, is meant to make the law more effective. In this case, however, the draft Lokayukt Bill is deliberately made a toothless tiger, removing even the few effective provisions that the Public Men’s Corruption (Investigation and Inquiry) Act 1998 had. The Bill, after being introduced in the Assembly, was referred to a Select Committee. The draft Bill was also published in the Government Gazette, inviting public objection, comments, suggestion, etc. within a given time frame. However, there is no way for any concerned citizen to get a list of suggestions made by the public, if any, and the action taken on these suggestions by the Select Committee. As a sequel to my articles, I made specific suggestions to the authorities for amendments to the Bill. I do not know whether these have been considered by the Select Committee.

I am repeating below the suggestions and amendments that will make the Bill more effective. I do hope our MLA’s will consider these suggestions and deliberate on these before passing the Bill.

Appointment of Lokayukt

EFFECTIVE WORKING of an institution like Lokayukt depends not only on the provisions of the law but also on the calibre and character of the persons who are entrusted with the implementation of the law. Section 3 of the Bill provides that the Governor shall appoint a person to be known as Lokayukt and if necessary more persons as Upa- Lokayukts on the advice tendered by the Chief Minister in consultation with the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court and the Speaker of the Goa Legislative Assembly. It is further provided that the person to be appointed should have already served as a Judge of the High Court or should be qualified to be appointed so. The Government of India, on the advice of the Supreme Court, have changed procedures for appointments to some top level sensitive posts under the Government. Appointments are approved by a Committee that includes the Prime Minister, the Home Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. For example: The posts of Central Vigilance commissioner and the Director of the CBI are filled up by following the above procedures. As per newspaper reports, the Lokpal Bill also provides that the Lokpal has to be appointed by the Central Government in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. There is no reason why such a provision should not exist in the Lokayukt Act of the State. Such a provision existed in the Goa Public Men’s Corruption (Investigation and Inquiries) Act 1988. It has been quietly dropped in the Lokayukt Bill, with obvious implications. In order to ensure fairness and impartiality and to keep the institution of Lokayukt out of murky party politics, it is absolutely necessary that the Chief Minister makes his recommendation for appointment of Lokayukt in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. The provision that recommendation shall be made in consultation with the Speaker will then become superfluous.

Qualification for appointment

IN THE PUBLIC Men’s Corruption (Investigation and Inquiries) Act 1988, it was provided that the person to be appointed as Lokayukt should either be a Judge of High Court or should have already served as a Judge of High Court. In the Lokayukt Bill, it is not only the above categories but also persons who are qualified to be High Court Judge that are made eligible for appointment to the post of the Lokayukt. This provides an opening for the appointment of fellow travellers and party sympathisers in the Bar to the post. It is obvious that this provision is a subtle attempt to hijack the Lokayukt and make him a bonded labour of the BJP, even before the institution is setup. The provision enabling the appointment of a person other than a serving or a retired High Court Judge should be deleted.

Time Limit

THERE IS A provision that complaints against a public functionary should be filed with the Lokayukt within five years of the occurrence of the act of corruption or mal-administration. The provision regarding the time limit should be deleted because disproportionate assets can be built only over a period of time and the complainant is unlikely to have proofs of the exact dates, etc. of acts of corruption. The actual evidence may have to be dug up by the Lokayukt during investigation. If the time limit is a must, it should be fifteen years. Corruption has spread like wild fire in Goa only since 1990. Hence citizens must be empowered to complain against public functionaries who have been freely indulging in corruption since 1990, if not earlier.

Definition of “Public Functionary”

THE DEFINITION of a “Public Functionary” as given in the 1988 Act, has been repeated in the Lokayukt Bill. As per this definition, almost any citizen who does any kind of social work or is connected with any institution in any honorary capacity can be hauled up by the Lokayukt. This is totally absurd. A fundamentalist and fascist Government can misuse this provision to humiliate and harass citizens who oppose Government policies. The definition should be amended to include only those that are paid salaries / honoraria / regular compensation / remuneration from the public ex-chequer. Examples are: Ministers including the Chief Minister, MLA’s, Non-Official Chairmen of Government Companies and Corporations in receipt of salaries etc. All other categories included in the draft Bill should be deleted because these are not paid from the State funds. Acts of corruption by persons in such categories can be dealt with under the Indian Penal Code.

Compensation

THE COMPENSATION of Rs. 25,000 payable to the public functionary, in case allegations of corruption / mal-administration are not proved, should be increased to Rs. 50,000. This is because the amount of Rs. 25,000 was fixed fifteen years back, in the 1988 Act.

Action on Recommendations

THERE IS A provision in the 1988 Act that enables Lokayukt to order any public functionary to resign from his post or demit office if allegations against him are proved. This provision does not find a place in the Lokayukt bill. The provision is necessary to make the Act effective and should be incorporated in the same form as it exists in the 1988 Public Men’s Corruption (Investigation and Inquiries) Act 1988. As per the present provisions of the Bill, the recommendations of the Lokayukt are not binding on the Government. All that the Lokayukt can do is to forward his recommendations to the Governor, if the Government does not accept these. It is absolutely necessary that the recommendations be made binding on the Government and that a time frame should be fixed for their implementation. The provision should be amended suitably. If the bill is passed as per the existing draft, the Act will have no role to play in bringing down corruption in the State.

Property Returns

THE PROVISIONS OF the Bill do not provide for any concrete punitive action against a public functionary for his failure to file his property returns as per law. The Lokayukt should have powers to start suo-moto investigations against public functionaries who fail to file their property returns.
Investigation Machinery
The investigation machinery under the Lokayukt should be strengthened by placing the Vigilance Department of the Government under the administrative and technical control of the Lokayukt. This will help the Vigilance Department to do its work without fear or favour and without any political interference. The Lokayukt will consequently be more effective in curbing corruption.

Effective Bill

THE INCORPORATION of the above suggestions in the Bill may help set up a more effective Lokayukt in the State. The all important question, however, is Why should a body of potential “accused” be interested in improving any machinery that can possibly bring more harm to them ? As far as the BJP is concerned, every draft Bill or resolution that comes to the Assembly from the Government is invariably an ego-trip for the Chief Minister. No BJP MLA can question his headmaster. As for the Congress MLA’s, can we expect some improvement in attitudes and morals of their leaders? We will wait and see.

Back