Editorial: Before a Lokayukta

The stage is now set for Sikkim to have an anticorruption ombudsman of its own in the form of a Lokayukta. When this happens, Sikkim will become the 19th State to have a Lokayukta in the country; the Centre is yet to allow itself a Lokpal. Things could have happened earlier for Sikkim, but the Bill, passed way back in December 2010, received presidential assent only recently, held up as controversy raged on the Lokpal being proposed by the Central Government and the version promoted by the India Against Corruption campaign and the move to make the institution of the Lokayukta uniform in all the States of the country. Since the deadlock at Delhi does not appear any closer to getting resolved, it is apt that decks have been cleared for Sikkim to go ahead with a Lokayukta of its own. The delay has been helpful is ironing out inconsistencies and possible confusion foisted by conflicting political considerations, and while many might have issues with the Lokayukta model which Sikkim will now get, it is best to give the agency a try before its effectiveness is brought into question. The controversy over the Lokpal [the Lokayukta for the Centre] has raged for a while now and in the aggressive posturing by all involved, the genesis of the institution itself has been forgotten. Corruption and abuse of office is mistakenly seen as a recent phenomenon, but fact remains that misuse of office is as old as the establishment of authority itself, efforts to ensure stronger checks and balances have hence been proposed and adopted since antiquity. As for the Lokayukta, the anticorruption ombudsman organization at the State-level, it is patterned on the institution of Ombudsman in Scandinavian countries and Parliamentary Commissioner for Investigation in New Zealand. It was first proposed 44 years ago by the Administrative Reforms Commission headed by Morarji Desai which submitted a special interim report on “Problems of Redressal of Citizen’s Grievances” in 1966. In this report, the ARC recommended the setting up of two special authorities designated as ‘Lokpal’ and ‘Lokayukta’ for the redressal of citizens’ grievances. In principle, the Lokayukta is expected to help people bring corruption and any misuse of office in the government to the fore. As for the Lokpal Bill, it was first proposed in Parliament by then Law Minister Ashoke Kumar Sen in the early 1960s. The first Jan Lokpal Bill was proposed by Shanti Bhushan in 1968 and passed in the 4th Lok Sabha in 1969, but did not pass through the Rajya Sabha. Subsequently, 'lokpal bills' were introduced in 1971, 1977, 1985, again by Ashoke Kumar Sen, while serving as Law Minister in the Rajiv Gandhi cabinet, and again in 1989, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2005 and in 2008, yet they were never passed.
The basic intent behind a Lokayukta is simple - to provide for a law to inquire or investigate administrative action taken by or on behalf of the Government or certain local and pubic authorities in certain cases involving acts of injustice, corruption and favouritism. Rules and laws addressing such excesses are already in place, and yet the need for a Lokayukta is keenly felt because unlike other agencies like the Courts which have many more responsibilities and the investigative agencies which are neither free from influence or bias nor very effective, a Lokayukta, in principle and is its name suggests – “delegated for the people”, is appointed specifically for the masses and to address their complaints against the elected representatives and public servants. This clear mandate is expected to expedite response to people’s complaints. Should the institution deliver, it will be to the benefit of all concerned because the waits will be shorter and the uncertainties not as stretched out as they are present. While the Lokayukta cannot hand out ‘punishment’, it can investigate and conduct raids and its final observations, even if they cannot punish the accused, will establish guilt or innocence in the people’s eyes. Its decisions will inherently have to be legally sound and for all speculations one may throw, once instituted, it can be expected to be fair as has been reasonably established in the experience of Lokayuktas in other states. Since one speaks of corruption and misuse of office here, it is important to bear in mind that laws or institutions like the Lokayukta [no matter how strong] cannot effectively contain these aberrations until the societal response to them changes. In a vacuity that is shocking, it generally considered okay to skim the cream so long as one is not caught. And even “caught” comes with the escape hatch of making good the misappropriated amount to escape penal action. Also, with each passing year, the definition of “caught/ exposed” keeps getting adjusted. While at one time, an investigation would have been enough to attract stigma, even a chargesheet is taken lightly and now even a corruption conviction can be played as martyrdom. Given this ground reality, perhaps, before one demands an activist Lokayukta, the public perceptions of corruption and the social responses to it need to be tweaked out of their present anesthetized state.