Corruption in Karnataka: Empower Lokayukta

On July 18, the Supreme Court stayed the single judge order of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Seemant Kumar Singh vs Mahesh P S & Others as part of Special Leave Petition. The case has assumed significance for the reasons: remarks made by the judge in the order on the threat; and contemporary developments in the state on the rise in corruption allegations against certain ministers and officials by the Karnataka Civil Contractors Association and prominent seers of religions organisations. This subsequently led to the resignation of the Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Minister and the chief minister’s order of assigning public works only with written instructions.

In the Karnataka High Court order dated July 11, 2022, the judge made revealing remarks about the threat received for questioning the ADGP of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in the case of Mahesh P S vs. State of Karnataka. The judge mentioned that the transfer threat is “nothing but an attack on the independence of judiciary and interference in dispensation of justice”.

The court observed that the statistics produced by the ACB before the court on the B reports (closure of investigation), are incomplete and the “very report given by ACB before the court is not the true report”. To illustrate, on March 10, Karnataka Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai indicated that the ACB had filed B reports in 29 cases whereas it is in 99 cases according to the ACB’s report submitted to the court.

The mismatch in the data presented in the Legislative Council and the court casts serious doubts on the investigating agency that was constituted in 2016 to curb corruption in government offices and bring in transparency in governance and administration. In March, 2020 the then chief minister B S Yediyurappa made an observation in the Assembly that corruption and transfer of officials are systemic issues.

In the Corruption Perception Index of 2021, India ranked 85th among 180 nations with a score of 40. With regard to India, Transparency International has observed that “while the country’s score has remained stagnant over the past decade, some of the mechanisms that could help rein in corruption are weakening. There are concerns over the country’s democratic status, as fundamental freedoms and institutional checks and balances decay”.

In India, corruption can broadly be classified into two categories i.e., corrosive corruption and bribery. The first one is systemic in the sense that it is institutionalised in the governance itself. The second one has to do with the citizens and local bureaucracy and it is culturally embedded. Corrosive corruption erodes the entire governance structure, whereas bribery destroys the ethical dimensions of the State in delivering basic services and public goods. Both the types indicate a crisis of ethics in governance, including lack of political morality in governing elites and a crisis of citizenship consciousness among the bribe giver and taker.

Seen from an institutional perspective, the first type operates at macro levels (branches) and the second one takes place at the micro (grassroot) levels. The micro level practice in day-to-day administration has percolated and permeated to macro level institutions as well making the entire governance system unaccountable and non-transparent.

Karnataka, during the tenure of Ramakrishna Hegde, introduced and practiced the concept of “value-based politics”. It is also the state where radical decentralisation reforms with the popular slogan of “power to the people” took firm roots, though this is still work in progress. The state was the first to enact the Right to Information Act and was known for its strong Lokayukta since its inception in 1984. The rise of corruption in governance of the state is correlated with the institutional weakening of the Lokayukta and the ethical crisis of leadership.

Governance in the state has been witnessing a considerable decline as seen from Public Affairs Index (4th to 7th rank in 2020 and 2021 respectively) and the Good Governance Index (3rd to 6th rank in 2019 and 2020-2021 respectively). Niti Aayog’s SDG indices of 2019 and 2020 show that Karnataka is lagging in achieving SDGs, especially goals 1 and 2. The overall governance in the state and its declining trend are affecting its pursuit of transparent and accountable governance and equitable development.

Empower Lokayukta

The appointment of B S Patil as Lokayukta in June this year is a step in the right direction. However, much more needs to be done to strengthen the institution. The first is to fill up the vacancies in the office of Lokayukta. As of June 30, 421 posts were vacant out of which 306 are Group ‘C’ followed by 50 in Group ‘D’, 35 in Group ‘A’ and 30 in Group ‘B’ posts. This understaffing is severely affecting the functioning of the Lokayukta. For example, out of 159 pending cases as of March 31, 2020, only 15 were disposed of in a year.

The Lokayukta must be accorded powers similar to that of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in matters of prosecution. The amendments to section 10 (1) of the KCS (CC&A) rules as suggested by the Karnataka First Administrative Reforms Commission in 2001, are the need of the hour.

The government must not lose any more time in empowering the institution of Lokayukta; otherwise it threatens the edifice of governance and political stability.

The symptoms are already evident -- PSI recruitment scam, and declined ranking in good governance and public affairs indices.

The chief minister has shown some intent in fighting corruption; however transparency in governance and administration demands political will and visionary leadership. The collective efforts of the government, civil society and citizens are essential to achieve the goal of citizen-centric administration.

(The writer is a PhD Fellow in Political Science, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bengaluru.)