lokpal selection panel mess dents UPA’s image
Eminent jurist Fali S Nariman's refusal to be part of the lokpal selection process puts the spotlight on the Congress-led UPA regime which has, once again, sought to undermine key institutions of national import. Having successfully stonewalled the establishment of the lokpal for the past four decades, now that the party and the Government it leads have been compelled to set up the anti-corruption panel, they are doing all that they can to make it a toothless tiger or yet another caged parrot. Add to this the pressures of poll season, and the Congress has no qualms in throwing out of the window crucial (but often time-consuming) legislative procedures and propriety. In his letter to the Prime Minister, Mr Nariman slams the lokpal selection process as one that may seem to be broad-based and consensus-driven but, in effect, overlooks the “most competent, the most independent, and the most courageous” of candidates. And he is not alone in his criticism of the UPA’s warped interpretation and implementation of the rules.
leader of the Opposition in Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley, for instance, has said that Mr Nariman's exit was expected as “men of stature will not agree to become rubber stamps” of the Government — in reference to the regime's surreptitious efforts to usurp the selection process by resorting to legal chicanery. Section 4.4 of the lokpal and lokayuktas Act, 2013, allows the Selection Committee to set up its own procedures for appointing the Chairperson and Members of the lokpal. But Rule 10 under Section 4.5 provides for a second Search Committee (of which Mr Nariman was to be a member) to recommend candidates to the Selection Committee, from a list of applicants forwarded by the Department of Personnnel and Training. Clearly, if Rule 10 is not read in consonance with Section 4.4 — as the Government is doing — the whole point of having a two-tier selection process that includes an Opposition leader, members of the judiciary and eminent individuals is defeated. The Government played a similar trick with the appointment of Mr PP Rao (technically, the President's choice) to the five-member Selection Committee. His candidature was opposed, and vehemently so, by Ms Sushma Swaraj on account of his ties with the Congress. But the leader of the Opposition in lok Sabha was out-voted 3-1 by the Prime Minister, the Speaker of the lok Sabha and the Chief Justice's nominee. While the majority vote decision may not be illegal, a consensus vote would have been proper. Unfortunately, the Congress has a history of such manipulations. Few have forgotten the regime's 2010 appointment of a tainted PJ Thomas to the Central Vigilance Commissioner's post; it was objected to by the Opposition and eventually struck down by the Supreme Court.