S.Basavaraj, Senior Advocate, Bengaluru
The delay in electing/selecting the Opposition Leader in Karnataka has damaged the institution against corruption in Karnataka.
While everyone including BJP political party blamed the Congress Government for destroying the Lokayukta institution by creating Anti Corruption Bureau, the inaction on the part of BJP in electing the Opposition Leader has further weakened the institution of Lokayukta. This is despite the fact that the Karnataka High Court struck down ABC and restored powers to Lokayukta.
Section 3 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 deals with appointment of Lokayukta and Upalokayukta. We are presently concerned with appointment of additional Upalokayukta. A person to be appointed as an Upalokayukta shall be a person who has held the office of a judge of a High Court for not less than five years and shall be appointed on the advice tendered by the Chief Minister in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka, the Chairman, Karnataka Legislative Council, the Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly, the Leader of the Opposition in the Karnataka Legislative Council and the Leader of the Opposition in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly.
Thus consulting the Leader of the Opposition in Karnataka Legislative Assembly and the Leader of the Karnataka Legislative Council is absolutely necessary for the appointment of additional Upalokayukta.
The BJP political party lost power and the new Congress Government was formed in May 2023. Even after almost 5 months BJP has not been able to elect the opposition leader in both the Houses.
Both the Lokayukta and the Lokayukta handle the works like Departmental enquiries; Public and private grievances with regard to all activities of the government; Enquire into allegations against public servants; Conducting raids, Investigating trap cases; Visiting districts for open hearings; Meeting walk-in complainants on a daily basis; Calling aggrieved persons and concerned officials to discuss issues raised; Examination of 200 files every day; Preparation of final notes under Section 12 (3) of the Act before making recommendations; Advice and preparation if case is challenged before Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal. Tender legal advice on fitness of case for appeal; Monitor vigilance department’s work, police and statistics. It is submitted that as on today there is only one Upalokayukta to assist the Lokayukta in the above duties. While the government was pleased to appoint a Lokayukta and one Upalokayukta, it has not appointed the second Upalokayukta as sanctioned in 1984.
Previously there were two Upalokayuktas. After Justice Ananda retired only Justice Phanindra is handling major workload. If the second Upalokayukta, as mandated in 1984, is not appointed, the institution of the Lokayukta will be unable to continue its mandate due to huge pendency thus affecting its usefulness. There is a large increase in complaints over the course of several years and months.
Speedy remedy to people’s grievance is required to keep the people’s confidence in the institute of the Ombudsman. There are thirty-one districts in the State of Karnataka. The Upalokayukta has to visit every district at least once a month to give justice to the institution of the Ombudsman. He is required to spend at least three days to open hearings, meet petitioners, complainants, among others. Thus, we can see it is impossible for one person to cover the whole State in one month.
Even in the matter of constitutional courts like the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India, the judiciary has lamented at lack of judges to dispose and decide the pending cases. Pendency of cases is the main reason for the institutional failure in rendering speedy justice to the aggrieved persons. The Hon’ble Supreme Court as stressed the need for filling up of the vacancies in the judicial positions from the civil courts level till the Supreme Court of India.
The institution of Lokayukta is a unique body to redress the grievances of citizens against mal administration and corruption. It is a matter of fact that the grievances against the governmental machinery is writ large and the reasons are not very difficult to perceive. In this regard an efficient body fully equipped with infrastructure and manpower is absolutely essential.
Samaja Parivarthana Samudaya has filed a public interest litigation seeking appointment of additional Upalokayukta and the High court of Karnataka has already issued notice to the State Government.
The BJP political party must elect the Leader of the opposition at the earliest to strengthen the institution of Lokayuka.
The internal bickering in the BJP has led to crumbling of a citadel and the BJP, which blamed the Congress for weakening the institution of Lokayukta, is answerable to the public at large.
Daksha Legal 