Pressure group wants independent Lokayukta
SHILLONG: Thma-U-Rangli-Juki (TUR), which is campaigning for an independent Lokayukta has expressed concern over the delay in forming the anti-corruption body due to the intervention of the court.
In a statement issued on Sunday, TUR wanted the state government to contest the recent stay of the High Court of Meghalaya as it wanted the authorities to urgently operationalise the Lokayukta and usher in a corruption free Meghalaya.
Earlier, the High Court of Meghalaya had stayed the part of any non-judicial member becoming the Chairperson of Lokayukta.
The High Court in the order had also stated that unlike the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act 2014,”the Central Lokpal and Lokayukta Act of 2013 does not prescribe any eligibility criteria for Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta,” said Tarun Bhartiya and Angela Rangad on behalf of TUR.
“This is a clear error of fact and partial reading of the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act 2014 as well as the Central Lokpal & Lokayuktas Act 2013. Provisions of the Meghalaya Lokayuta Act 2014 are in fact substantially modeled on the Central Lokpal Act & Lokayuktas Act 2013”, TUR said.
TUR also released the provisions of Central Lokpal Act which said, “The Lokpal shall consist of a Chairperson, who is or has been a Chief Justice of India or is or has been a Judge of the Supreme Court or an eminent person who fulfils the eligibility specified in clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Central Lokpal Act.
The clause (b) states about the qualification of a person heading Lokpal.
A non-judicial member can become the chairperson of Lokpal as per the clause whcih said, “. a member other than a Judicial Member can become the chairperson, ” if he is a person of impeccable integrity and outstanding ability having special knowledge and expertise of not less than twenty-five years in the matters relating to anti-corruption policy, public administration, vigilance, finance includinginsurance and banking, law and management”.
According to TUR, the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act 2014 has similar provisions
Moreover, Central Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013 do not specify the nature of Lokayukta to be established in the states respecting the federal nature of the Indian Union but says that ” Every State shall establish a body to be known as the Lokayukta for the State, if not so established, constituted or appointed, by a law made by the State Legislature, to deal with complaints relating to corruption against certain public functionaries, within a period of one year from the date of commencement of this Act.”
TUR further said that Meghalaya Government in light of a sustained people’s campaign which took lessons from the various anti corruption institutions and movements in the country came up with an act and made a series of amendments respecting several demands and suggestions put forward by the citizens making the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act one of the best in the country.
“It also needs to be stated that the Lokayukta is merely a body which shall take cognizance of complaints of cases of corruption and decide after sifting the evidence, whether the complaints are to be further investigated and/or chargesheeted by an independent investigation and prosecution wing of the Lokayukta”, TUR said, while adding that the final prosecution of such corruption cases will happen in Special Courts constituted for such matters, which will be in the judicial system and independent of the institution of Lokayukta and staffed by serving judges.
The NGO further pointed out that this means that the institution of Lokayukta will need people with various skills of which judicial experience is just one of them. Moreover the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act makes it amply clear that 50% of the members of the Lokayukta shall have judicial background, meaning they are either retired judges of the High Court or those persons (senior advocate/jurist) who are eligible to be High court judges.
“There is nothing in the Constitution of India that suggests that a retired person from the Judicial Background is higher in hierarchy or skilled than persons who have experience in vigilance, anti corruption policy and others”the NGO said, while adding that to have an effective anti corruption mechanism and institution what is needed is synergy of various talents.
We can state with confidence that older models of Lokayukta which only had retired judges as members and chairperson (Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and others ) did not necessarily create an independent and effective institution. Further, experience has proved that institutions and laws which came about and exist as a result of widespread participation of citizens and varied persons bringing in varied skill and experience have been more effective and useful.
TUR also criticized the Advocate General Dr. B. P. Todi, the legal advisor and representative of the state government for not presenting the correct view as he merely stated “the provision in question prima facie appears to be creating an anomalous situation.”
According to the NGO, this is a serious lapse on the part of the Advocate General who is government’s legal representative.
“The Meghalaya Government needs to vigorously challenge this order both in the Meghalaya High Court as well as in the Supreme court because the order is based on error of fact and it encroaches upon the separation of powers between the Legislature, Executive and the Judiciary so as to ensure that future ‘judicial scrutiny’ does not become Judicial over reach.
According to TUR, this uncalled for stalemate should be put to rest at the earliest to usher in the long awaited operationalisation of the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act 2014, so as to have a corruption free Meghalaya.