Tuesday evening, as this column is being written, the common man in India’s National Capital Territory (NCT) is without a lokayukta, our answer to an anti-graft Ombudsman. Justice Manmohan Sarin, abete noire of many corrupt politicians, has retired.
This isn’t to say that a successor can’t be found or won’t be. But in the absence of deeper reforms, won’t he (or she) hobble within the ambit of the same helplessness.
That’s because recommendations of the 11th All-India lokayuktas Conference that concluded remain on paper despite having been passed in November last year. Sarin has gone on the record stating how it took him three years to organize the conference – and now that even the simplest recommendations remained unimplemented, he has had a compendium released just a few minutes before his retirement.
The 112 pages, which anti-corruption activists must read, have detailed statements from the President of India, personnel minister V Narayanaswamy, the then minister for law and justice Ashwini Kumar, several judges of the Supreme Court and high courts, lokayukyas of Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Jharkhand, Kerala and Bihar, the then Comptroller & Auditor-General Vinod Rai, Chief Information Commissioner Satyanand Mishra, former Chief Election Commissioner SY Quraishi, and a galaxy of other legal minds, all saying the right things. But execution of even the central ideas relevant to the citizen and the corporate remain unattended.
For example:
1. lokayuktas can’t just be wasting their time indicting politicians.
Isn’t it obvious to see that babus in the IAS and/or others holding civil posts under the Union or those employed in connection with the affairs of the State, including the principal officer of an NGO receiving grant or financial aid from your tax money, must fall within the definition of “public servants/public functionaries” that a lokayukta can go afterIJ Why should the Ombudsman have to go through the minister to catch his or her conniving bureaucratIJ
2.Despite explicit directions, why only 16 States have lokayuktas in place. And powers accorded to these Ombudsmen not uniformIJ
3.Why are ombudsmen disallowed to take suo motu cognizance, they lack power of search and seizure during investigation, or even some kind of lokayukta police, or basic budgets to amplify their existenceIJ Why aren’t those of us in the public told that here’s this nodal agency which will receive our complaints against corruptionIJ
4. In the absence of search and seizure powers, all that the Ombudsman has are the bits and pieces that we the complainant may have been able to generate. Is this the way to go after big-ticketcorruptionIJ
5. The Ombudsman neither has supervisory jurisdiction over anti-corruption agencies nor appropriate financial autonomy – at onepoint of time Sarin had to seek lt Governor Tejendra Khanna’s assent to pay a lawyer who was defending the office of the lokayukta in a case! In a more telling example, the lokayukta was saddled for monthswith two sweepers of the Delhi administration, one who was alwaysdrunk and the other far too weak to work; but the man who must swingthe broom against the government couldn’t hire two on his own. Dittofor travelling overseas or even simpler things like writing-off a staff car – lokayukta’s have to dance around the Government thatthey’re supposed to name and shame!
6. That the lokayukta can’t haul anyone for contempt doesn’t just embolden the executive. Shouting matches in the lokayukta’s courtroom have involved lawyers and politicians alike.
7. Judgements of anti-graft ombudsmen finally go into the hands of a “competent authority.” This competent authority is then free to kick start a fresh probe – including, believe me for it, hearing both parties and summoning fresh evidence. There is, conceptually, aprovision for the ombudsman to file a special report of protest, but that’s where the march against graft comes to an abrupt halt: there’s no provision still for judicial review or scrutiny of the competentauthority.
8.Not surprisingly, the ombudsman has no means to provide protection to a whistleblower.
Tail Piece: This isn’t just about an unattended agenda of an Ombudsmen’s conference. In lokayukta vs. TRS Reddy (1997) 9SCC42, even the Supreme Court was mindful that ombudsmen are being reduced to paper tigers. The apex court suggested an appropriate legislation so that people’s confidence is restored. What happenedIJ
(The columnist is CEO & Co-Founder, India Strategy Group, Hammurabi & Solomon Consulting. Tweet @therohitbansal).