Truth of an unsteady Lokpal

Former Union Home Secretary and ex-Secretary, Justice

Setting up of the Lokpal is considered a tremendous achievement of civil society in India. No other proposal for creation of a new institution had met with such stiff resistance from the political establishment, whichever political party was in power. A series of Bills introduced in Parliament, over 35 years of the discourse, lapsed for want of follow-up. A myth prevailed that if the government tried to push the Lokpal Bill, it would soon be out of power. Whether the PM should be brought under its jurisdiction was one of the most contentious issues. Ultimately, Anna Hazare’s agitation in Delhi, the candlelight marches and the media blitz led to the passing of the Lokpal Act during the UPA-II regime, which was already on the back foot due to a succession of corruption scandals. The BJP had strongly supported the demand for setting up of a Lokpal, but when it came to power in 2014, it began to drag its feet. The matter had to be agitated in the SC by way of a PIL petition and due to non-response from the government, the court had closed the case at one stage. But, finally the government relented and the Lokpal came into being in 2019.

The very first step taken to initiate the functioning of the Lokpal is, however, disturbing. The Lokpal Rules notified on March 2, almost a year after the appointment of the first Lokpal, state that a complaint filed against a sitting or a former PM will be heard by a full Bench at the admission stage itself to decide whether an inquiry should be initiated. Importantly, if a complaint is dismissed at the admission stage, no reason is to be given for rejection and records of the inquiry are not to be published or made available to anyone. This is the same procedure which is followed for admissions of PIL. But, the Lokpal is not a court of law. It is a special machinery charged with the responsibility to fight corruption. If reasons for the rejection of a complaint against a PM are not divulged, the petitioner will not be able to file an appeal in the SC to pursue his complaint. Particularly in the initial years of its functioning, establishing credibility of the institution is most important. Every decision given by the Lokpal must be based on a ‘speaking’, self-explanatory, order. This principle must not be permitted to be comprised under any circumstances.

The UPA-II, with its own record of blatant corruption, was unable to resist even the grossly unreasonable demands of the Hazare agitation. As a result, a very top-heavy Lokpal has come into being. Since it has taken months for the Lokpal to begin its work, in sheer frustration, two of its members have resigned. It would have been best to start with a small-sized Lokpal and to expand it later in the light of the filing of complaints by people. It is not clear how long it will take for the organisation to become really functional.

Rhetoric of zero tolerance for corruption has remained only on paper so far. India has still not adopted a national policy on the eradication of corruption. When the Lokpal Act was passed, it was hoped that the Lokayukta law will also be passed by the states in a definite time frame. But, in the name of autonomy and protecting federal principles, the states have been dragging their feet. The relevant issues could have been placed before the Inter-State Council for discussions and evolving a national policy on the subject. But, this subject has been sidelined both at the national and state levels.

In my book, Good governance never on India’s radar, I had enunciated a 26-point charter for waging a war on corruption. It covered constitutional amendments, legislative changes and administrative actions on a wide range of issues. Time-bound action on any such multi-faceted plan will be feasible only if the Central and state governments act in unison. But with the present strained relations, this is unlikely in the near future.

Modi, on assumption of office as PM, had declared an important goal of lesser government and better governance. Eradication of corruption has to be an integral part of any such programme. Some steps are being taken by the Centre, but the government’s commitment to right to information seems to be faltering.

However, the process of eradication of corruption has not even been initiated in most states. From all accounts, the revenue, police and urban development departments are most prone to corrupt practices. It is particularly distressing to read accounts of rampant corruption in social welfare, child development and tribal development departments, which are deprived of adequate provisions in the Budget. Even these meagre provisions fail to reach the beneficiaries. The disillusionment of these neglected sections of society has remained a sour point in the discourse on the eradication of corruption.

Periodical exit surveys of persons visiting these offices should be able to pinpoint where the shoe pinches — outdated procedures and haphazard ways of working, involving queries after queries, before arriving at a decision. The computerisation of registration offices in states has been much bandied about. But a reality check reveals that even with high technology and computerisation, wherever human element comes in, opportunities are exploited to make a quick buck. Thus, even getting an appointment in these offices requires under-the-table payments. Why should this interface be necessary at all? There is no such human interface in the new procedure laid down for getting a new passport or its renewal. A total review of procedures and practices, calling for doing away with any interface with the applicants, has to be the first priority. The work involved needs to be taken as a challenge. But, it has fallen by the wayside all these years for want of administrative and political will, more the former than the latter.