JOIN USControversy characterises the Karnataka Government Order (GO) issued on March 14 which transforms the fight against corruption. The GO creates a new police station called Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), which will now have to obtain permission of the appointing authority before it registers a case of corruption against a public servant.
The ACB headed by an Additional Director General of Police directly reports to the state government – through a secretary in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. For the first time, a police station would be outside the purview of the DG&IGP of the state. It is an administratively anomalous situation which has arisen in Karnataka.
Clearly, the GO aims to divest the investigating officers of the Police Wing under the Lokayukta, from exercising their investigative powers under the 1988 Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act. Without any legislative sanction, the GO establishes a Vigilance Advisory Board (VAB), Vigilance Cells and an ACB, all aimed at “strengthening the anti corruption efforts in the State”. It makes an oblique reference of the need to streamline the manner in which the Lokayukta now functions.
All these changes have been instituted overnight without much public debate as well as leave of the legislature. The ostensible provocation is the ongoing litigation in the Karnataka High Court where a single judge micro monitors the Lokayukta and its allied police functions.
Debatably, Karnataka had the best Lokayukta in the country with a proven three decade track record to combat corruption and expose those bureaucrats and politicians who delivered bad governance. Rather than strengthen this institution, which recently exposed its own chief responsible for certain grave misdeeds, the state government’s decision to render its police wing to a mere inquiry and a fact finding body without even a modicum of a debate that is the hallmark of any democracy, is despicable. This has obviously raised a storm and civil society agitates rightly over the issue.
The GO gives the impression that with the establishment of ACB as a police station, vigilance cell and VAB, the fight against corruption would improve. However in reality, it only weakens the Lokayukta. The ACB cannot register cases suo motu. It is to be under a secretary and not a DGP well-versed in investigation techniques.
The VAB is chaired by the chief secretary besides having several other bureaucrats. The whole exercise is intended to shackle the police wing whose investigations were under the superintendence of the Lokayukta and make the ACB do it under the thumb of the government.
The Lokayukta was instituted through an Act of the state legislature in 1984 to deal with complaints of corruption, nepotism, indiscipline and grievances related to officialdom to ensure qualitative public administration. It was established with different wings to deal with – administration, inquiry, technical and police. Through a separate GO in 1991, several years after the Centre passed the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, the power of investigation under Section 17 of the Act was conferred on all police insp-ectors in the Police Wing of Lokayukta.
The 1998 case
In the controversial GO which creates the ACB, the government specifically refers to the Supreme Court order in C Rangaswamaiah vs Karnataka Lokayukta by Justices K Venkataswami and M Jagannadha Rao which was passed on July 21, 1998. The issue raised in this special leave petition was whether investigation under Section 17 entrusted by the state to police officers on deputation to the Lokayukta is vitiated as alleged and transgresses the independence of the institution. The Supreme Court categorically held that such entrustment of duties has statutory backing and obviously is with the tacit approval of the Lokayukta.
Subsequent to this judgment, the Karnataka government issued further GOs in 2002 to empower police inspectors in the police wing with powers to take up investigation under Section 2(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Clearly, therefore, the current GO which cites the 1998 SC judgment is uncalled for at this point in time. It is just a ruse to weaken the Lokayukta, especially when there is no incumbent to the said post to oppose such a move. It is noteworthy that this GO does not cite any prior consultation with the Lokayukta.
What exactly do the citizens want and what actually does the government of the day propose to deliver? It is pointless to demolish an existing integrity institution like the Lokayukta and create a new one that cannot even register a case without the permission of the government. The success of India Against Corruption that united the country in 2010-11 has often been likened to the freedom movement. Citizens across the country called for tough anti-corruption measures and still continue to cry for the same.
The citizenry has patiently waited for the creation of an independent and effective ombudsman since 1964. In spite of its deficiencies, Karnataka was consi-dered the first and most effective amon-gst the dozen Lokayuktas in the country. Unfortunately, first it was subverted from within by a person who once headed the state’s judiciary. And now the executive is tinkering with it without any legislative sanction. The courts are being kept in the dark about these manipulations.
Evidently, the state government aims to establish an unholy nexus between the two pillars of democracy – the executive and the legislature – to sabotage an institution like the Lokayukta with a track record of integrity. Whichever the political party in power, they are averse to strong anti-corruption machinery for fear that they could become victims when in political wilderness.
However, the political leadership should realise that the country has to follow the international best practices enunciated in the United Nations Convention Against Corruption which the Congress regime ratified in May 2011.
(Sri Kumar is former Member, Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi and DG&IGP, Karnataka; Somu is Head of Department, School of Law, Christ University, Bengaluru)