Performance of the powerless
Lokayuktas in Andhra, UP, Punjab and Haryana have limited resources and teeth, while that in Madhya Pradesh has seen its powers curtailed
Lokayuktas in Andhra, UP, Punjab and Haryana have limited resources and teeth, while that in Madhya Pradesh has seen its powers curtailed
In Andhra Pradesh, the Lokayukta Act came into force in 1983. The incumbent is Justice S Ananda Reddy. The office of the lokayukta in the state has not always been manned, remaining vacant for a couple of years during the tenure of former chief minister N Chandrababu Naidu.
No one is able to point to any high-profile example of action against corruption by a lokayukta in the state. Former lokayukta Justice R Ramanujam is, therefore, naturally dismissive of the effectiveness of the office. He dubs it a “paper tiger”!
The institution does not have the power even to hold someone in contempt for not implementing its orders, says Ramanujam. “The lokayukta has been disposing of about 2,000 cases a year pertaining to various public grievances such as entitlement for ration cards, pattadar passbooks and old-age pensions,” Dayakar Reddy, registrar of lokayukta, told Business Standard.
While the lokayukta takes up cases of corruption on his own, the office depends on the government to act. However, cases are often brought before the lokayukta by aggrieved parties because it costs them little, just Rs 150, to do so.
While the anti-corruption bureau (ACB) comes under the lokayukta in Karnataka, enabling it to direct the investigative agency to inquire into cases of corruption involving ministers and officials, the Andhra Pradesh government only recently allowed the organisation to take the assistance of ACB and CB-CID — that too with prior concurrence from the government.
To become more effective in dealing with allegation of corruption in the government, the lokayukta proposed 18 amendments to the state Act when Y S Rajesakhara Reddy was the chief minister. These included powers to hold the official concerned who failed to implement its orders in contempt, impose fines and order for disciplinary action against culprits, besides bringing ACB and the State Vigilance Commission, which deals mainly with instances of loss to public exchequer, under its purview.
“The lokayukta can issue warrants to summon officials in cases related to them. But on many occasions they do not respond because it has no power to hold them in contempt. Officials respond only when there are media reports,” says an advocate who deals with lokayukta cases.
Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta Justice N K Mehrotra says the he enjoys less powers than his counterparts in Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka. “We do not have any assisting investigative agency or team of experts to probe the cases we take up,” he says, adding: “We have been provided with two judicial officers and two DSP-rank officers. When we take up cases involving ministers and bureaucrats, how can a DSP-level officer be expected to probe them, given his rank and experience.”
Mehrotra can think of only one case since 2006 in which the state government took action by removing a minister charged of corruption from the state ministry.
“In MP and Karnataka, the lokayuktas have their own courts and judges, prosecutors and engineering departments to probe cases requiring technical knowledge on the part of investigators,” Mehrotra says. Referring to the proposed national Lok Pal Bill, he says unless the state-level lokayukta institution is strengthened to tackle corruption at a stage where it most affects the citizens, reforms at the national level would mean little.
The Madhya Pradesh lokayukta, considered the strongest in power after its counterpart in Karnataka, came in limelight with its clamp-down on IAS couple Arvind Joshi and Tinu Joshi for allegedly misappropriating assets worth Rs 350 crore.
Lokayukta Justice P P Naolekar says: “All lokayuktas demand powers. We receive several complaints that carry no legal evidence. Yet we take note of all the complaints. We also normally do not take cognizance of media reports. But in the case of IAS officer couple (Arvind and Tinu Joshi), we considered them.”
Established on February 14, 1982, the lokayukta in Madhya Pradesh has its own special police establishment, headed by a director general and a contingent of investigating officers. It also has its legal cell headed by three advisors who either have judicial background or come from the high court.
The lokayukta is also assisted by a technical cell with three top authorities of chief engineer rank, assisted by a platoon of competent engineers and technicians. The Madhya Pradesh government also amended the 1982 Lokayukta and Uplokayukta Act in 1998 to create vigilance committees at the district level. Each committee comprises three members, one of them retired judicial official of first-class civil judge rank.
However, O P Dubey, retired IAS officer and former secretary to lokayukta, who admits he has not seen any political interference in his nine years with the organisation, adds: “In 2003, the government amended the Act and took administrative control of the superintendent of special police establishment from the lokayukta. Isn’t it curtailing powers of the institution? Yet, the lokayukta has been useful for the common man”.
Till 2008, the lokayukta had received 107,448 complaints of corruption. Of these 68,847 were closed as they did not carry sufficient weight to be investigated, 17,104 were sent to various departments to initiate action, and 20,504 were registered for investigation. From 2008, till now, 1,431 complaints have been put under investigation. Of these, 858 have been recommended for action to the state government. The Special Police Establishment has conducted 111 trap cases, found 54 cases of disproportionate properties, and 36 cases of misuse of office. There are 49 cases against IAS officials, 7 against IPS officials and an equal number against IFS (Indian Forest Service) officials. There are 10 cases against ministers, among which one against Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan has been sent to the sessions court.
Man Dahima, retired IAS, says: “The lokayukta must be given more teeth to take strict actions. It should be independent of governments. If not, it must have the immediate sanctions to prosecute public servants whenever there is a recommendation. Moreover, the special police establishment under the lokayukta should be given special facilities. They should not be treated as an ordinary police force. More important, personnel with clean image should be hired in the SPE.”
In Punjab, they actually call him the lok pal, whereas it is called the lokayukta’s office in Haryana. The Punjab lok pal has received 388 complaints since its office was set up in 1996. Decision on 107 of these is still pending.
“There are complaints related to political people, including ministers, the chief minister and MLAs; chairman of boards and corporations nominated by the state government and statutory bodies. But the office lacks the required infrastructure and investigative staff to deal with such complaints,” officials with the lok pal office say.
Manpower remains a pressing problem for the lok pal in Punjab. In recent years, the staff strength has been reduced. “There is no SP or DSP rank officer. Three years ago, the lok pal office had a DGP, besides an SP and other supporting staff, including inspectors and sub-inspectors, to carry out investigations,” complain officials.
The situation of the Haryana lokayukta is similar. Haryana passed its Lokayukta Bill in 1998, but the first ombudsman was unceremoniously removed within a few months of appointment! A revised Lokayukta Act was subsequently put in place in 2003. In 2010-11, a total of 223 complaints were received by the lokayukta. Of which 178 complaints were disposed of, and 42 are still pending. The incumbent lokayukta, Justice (retired) N K Sood, complains the lokayukta has no powers to ensure that action is taken. He can merely “recommend action”.
Raj Kumar Siwach, an RTI activist who teaches public administration in Chaudhri Devi Lal University, Sirsa, says public awareness about the existence and role of a lokayukta is beginning to spread only now.
(Inputs from B Dasarath Reddy, Virendra Singh Rawat, Shashikant Trivedi, Vijay C Roy & Vikas Sharma)
| ANDHRA PRADESH REPORT CARD Complaints (final investigation) pending, received and disposed of during 2009 |
|
| * Number of complaints pending as on January 1, 2009 | 5 |
| * Number of complaints in which final investigation was ordered in 2009 | 2 |
| * Number of complaints available for disposal during 2009 |
7 |
| * Complaints disposed of in 2009 |
Nil |
| * Number of complaints pending as on December 31, 2009 | 7 |
| * Number of complaints pending in courts |
i) Stayed by the high court 1 |
| ii) Pending in Supreme Court 1 | |
| * Number of complaints in which punishments were recommended | Nil |
URL: http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/performancethe-powerless/434385/