Politics in curbing graft

Once again, the appointment of two members to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has been challenged in the Supreme Court. Additionally, the fact that the Lokpal is still vacant and that the Karnataka Lokayukta has been embroiled in corruption scandal, underlines the lack of political interest and government intent in the struggle against corruption.

Are the Central and state governments really serious about their intentions to combat corruption in the country? Today, the political leadership in Karnataka seeks to “strengthen” the Lokayukta through the legislative process. But is it an attempt to undermine the Institution by taking away its powers to check maladministration?

The abuse of office by its holders in the “integrity institutions” has made it convenient for the political leadership to tinker with it -- rather than address the weaknesses that prevent it to deliver expected outcomes. The political genius of the manoeuvre lies in the apparent justification that it combats corruption. Moreover, the move is politically timed and convenient to the ruling party, which attempts to safeguard itself against revenge-prosecution if it is voted out of office in the event of an early Assembly election.

While the Lokayukta was established as an institution that would lead the crusade against the corrupt, in reality it has been allowed to degenerate into an ineffective and toothless organisation fully dependent on government largesse and orders - before the guilty can be brought to book. Barring a brief flash of glory during 2008-11 when the Lokayukta was effective and brought down the first BJP chief minister in the state and ultimately led to the restoration of Congress rule in Karnataka, the Lokayukta has never been permitted to realise its true potential.

Do our political leaders really want to fight corruption or do they establish institutions like the Lokpal, Lokayukta and CVC only to create an impression of doing so? The CVC was created by a 1964 resolution of the Central government, but Parliament sanction to finally give it a statutory status happened only in 2003. Surprisingly, the CVC Regulations that spell out its day to day functions are not yet promulgated.

Except the first CVC who happened to be a former Chief Justice of Karnataka - Justice Nittur Srinivasa Rao – only IAS officials are appointed as CVC till the Supreme Court intervened by its March 3, 2011 order to set aside the appointment and call it non est. Thereafter, no further political action resulted to restore the vitality of the CVC which the Apex court referred to as an “integrity institution”. It only speaks volumes about the lack of political consensus over the need to fight corruption.

If the government really wishes to assuage its citizens that it is committed to root out corruption, it should appoint the best available persons to head these institutions in a totally transparent manner. State governments should have regulations that permit him/her to not only complete investigations independently but also initiate prosecution without waiting for government sanction.

Importantly, state governments should undertake police reforms urgently which are so necessary to dilute political interference and professionalise investigative work at the cutting edge levels. After all, local police is the only agency available everywhere to enforce the rule of law.

This should transform police work culture and separate law and order from investigation functions. Only when police reforms are fully implemented, ad hoc measures such as Special Investigation Teams (SIT) can be expected to impartially investigate cases where the Lokayukta himself is under a cloud.

Fair probe?

Clearly, the SIT established to probe malfeasance charges against the incumbent Lokayukta could feel constrained to make a fair probe. Therefore, in the absence of police reforms, if the CBI were not to be entrusted with such sensitive investigation, the correct course of action would have been to appoint a multi-member Commission of Inquiry under the 1952 Commission of Inquiry Act and empower it with police powers under the 1861 Police Act to investigate not only the said criminal case but also take up fresh cases suo motu if they come to light during their investigations.

Now, the time has come for the political leadership to create a road map to strengthen anti-corruption institutions and staff them professionally. This should include a mechanism that ruthlessly deals with corruption in the ranks of these agencies themselves. The decision to implement much needed police reforms would win citizen’s confidence in the road towards a zero-corruption tolerance society.

Today, Central/state vigilance/anti corruption agencies, operate alone, in silos without any inter-agency channels to tackle corruption effectively. Therefore, the need now arises to shift from an investigation organisation-based approach to multi-jurisdictional team investigation. It would deny a single investigating officer the capability to derail the course of a probe.

Clearly, corruption has proved to be the mother of all ills and leads to a crisis of governance. It has nurtured the naxal problem, made Mumbai-type terror strikes possible, bogged down business deals, spoilt the sports sector, harmed healthcare, eroded education, dwarfed development, polluted politics and marauded money markets.

Yet, our governments do not demonstrate the political will to fight this hydra-headed demon through empowerment of institutions like the state police, the state vigilance commissions, the Lokayukta, the CVC or the Lokpal. 

(Sri Kumar is former Member, CVC and DG&IGP, Karnataka, and Iyengar is Assistant Professor of Political Science, Christ University, Bengaluru)