The corruption watchdog Lokayukta is facing a grave crisis of credibility in Karnataka. The charges of graft against people close to the Lokayukta are illustrative of the kind of challenges we face in the country as corruption has permeated deeply. With complainants pointing to extortion operations run from the premises of the Lokayukta, a special investigating team was brought into the picture. The legislature is grappling with whether to make the move to “impeach” a Lokayukta who is advancing the argument — with which the state government is in agreement — that there is no need to resign until the SIT makes its report.
The very existence of an ombudsman with the moral authority to preside independently over corruption allegations is being called into question. A watchdog independent of the executive and the judiciary is strongly recommended in our type of democracy where power ultimately rests in the hands of these two bodies. The person scrutinising the executive has to unimpeachable, which brings us back to picking the right person.
The vetting of Lokayukta candidates has to be far more thorough, and rules should be laid down for their removal in the event of wrongdoing. No post can be placed beyond corrective action as otherwise the person holding it may believe he can get away with any misdemeanour. In the final analysis, it is the honesty of the official, who has to uphold the even trickier task of a watchdog, which will determine the success of an ombudsman. Leaving the appointment to politicians is clearly not ideal.
