India Culture, Business, Sports and Food. Get all the buzz in India now

POLITICAL AND OFFICIAL APATHY VICTIMEZED LOKPAL

The Ninth All India Biennial Conference of Lokpals, Lokayukts and, Upa-Lokayukts held in Bangalore rightly called for conferring constitutional status on the institution of Lokpal. The Chief Justice of India, who attended the conference, had appreciated and endorsed the idea.

However, it is doubtful to what extent this recommendation will be pursued to its logical conclusion. There is skepticism on this count because such conferences have become a ritual. Lokpals and Lokayukts meet to air grievances, demand more powers and resources for their I proper functioning and then it is back to square one.
The idea of Ombudsman type of institution for the country was first mooted by the First Administrative Reforms commission of 1966. It recommended setting up of a two-tier machinery of Lokpal and Lokayukts to redress the citizens’ grievances and to check corruption and mal-administration.

Acting on the recommendations, the Centre tabled a Bill in Parliament in 1968 providing for such an institution. Even as the Bill was waiting passage, the Lok Sabha was dissolved and, consequently, the Bill lapsed. From then onwards, the Bill has met with the same fateful end.
Since, 1968, the legislation for Lokpal at the Centre has been tabled not less than eight times (last time in 2001) in Parliament but in vain. Every time it was introduced, it lapsed with the dissolution of House. The result: this institution has failed to see the light of the day at the Centre.

Though 17 states have set up the institution, there are varying differences in their respective legislations with regard to their powers, functions and jurisdiction. A comparative analysis of the working of different state Lokayukts present a grim scenario.
Whereas in some states, there is no occupant to this office, in others, the holder of this post is more or less toothless. In some states, the Lokayuktas complain of inadequate staff and poor infrastructure while in others the requests for sanction of prosecution or recommendation are gathering dust in the cupboards of the state governments.

Consider the typical case of Haryana.Here the institution has been a victim of political and official apathy ever since its evolution in 1998. The first Lokayukt had to face an unceremonious exit after the Act was repealed following the change of guard in the state. Much worse, he had to approach the Punjab and Haryana High Court for claiming compensation for his unexpired tenure. Subsequently, the Haryana Assembly enacted legislation in 2003. Surprisingly, the incumbent was found only in 2006. Yet, till date, the state government has not framed the rules for purposes of legislation governing the state Lokayukta. All this depicts the casual and apathetic attitude of the state governments towards the institution.

In recent years, various commissions and committees have stressed the need for establishing and strengthening of this institution. The National Commission to Review the Working of Constitution (NCRWC) set up in 2000, in its recommendations, has stressed the need to enact legislation on Lokpal. It recommended that the Constitution be amended to incorporate a provision making it obligatory on the state governments to set up the institution of Lokayukt in accordance with the provisions of legislation of appropriate legislatures.

The National Common Minimum Programme of the UPA government at the Centre also envisages enactment of the Lokpal Bill. However, the ruling combine has done little in this regard.

Even the Second Administrative Reforms Commission headed by Mr. M.Veerappa Moily, had in its fourth report tilted, "Ethics in Governance" called for an urgent legislation on the subject as well as constitutional status to the institution of Lokpal.
It recommended a Rashtriya Lokayukta at the Central level with a retired Supreme Court judge as the head, an eminent jurist as Member and the Central Vigilance Commissioner as Member-Secretary.

The UPA government should, therefore, endeavour to enact such a legislation without any further delay. The best idea would be to have a single comprehensive Central legislation in this regard, as was done in the case of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which superseded all other state legislations on the subject.

This aforesaid legislation should incorporate the best and ideal inputs and provisions from various states Lokayukt Acts which have worked efficiently and have stood the test of time. It is noteworthy that the Kamataka government has through an ordinance promulgated in September this year granted suo motu powers of inquiry and investigation to the state Lokayukt in respect of the lAS, IPS and other senior officers of the state government.

Earlier, this power was enjoyed by only the Upa-Lokayukt, that too, in respect of lower rung officials. This is indeed a laudable step in the direction of empowering of this institution. The Central legislation should follow this guiding principle. In fine, if in the annual ranking of Global Corruption Index by Transparency International, Norway, Finland, New Zealand etc. are adjudged as clean countries, it must be realized that they were the very first to set up ombudsman-type institution in their respective countries. .