We have had increasing tension in several States, including Karnataka, in the matter of appointment of Lokayuktas.
However, if one were to raise the question, ‘What were the past judgments of our future Lokayuktas?’, almost everybody involved in the appointment of a Lokayukta would remain clueless and therefore, ignorant of a candidate’s real suitability.
It is tragic that the most critical aspect that should guide the choice of a Lokayukta is the very thing that the appointers are least bothered about – the judge’s past judgments.
The Lokayukta statute in Karnataka insists upon the appointment of a person who has been a judge of a High Court or the Supreme Court. It is the highest anti-corruption office in Karnataka and has great powers under the statute.
A judge who is keen to act as the Lokayukta or the anti-corruption head of a State should show his suitability by how he has dealt with corruption and abuse of administrative discretion during his tenure on the Bench.
In Karnataka, the Chief Minister will select a person as the Lokayukta after consultation with the Karnataka High Court Chief Justice, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, the Chairman of the Legislative Council, Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly and the Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Council. The appointment is then made by the Governor.
The Chief Minister should look at the judgments authored by a candidate as every candidate would have had more than a decade at the Bench – a judge is best known by his judgments delivered during his long tenure than by anything else. Specifically, what has been the Judge’s position on corruption, how has the judge dealt with corruption cases and criminal investigation, what has the judge said about administrative discretion and how has he dealt with abuse of administrative discretion?
With no data collected on these critical factors, the persons that agree on the selection of our future Lokayukta are primarily in the dark about the suitability of any candidate and cannot say that they are objectively satisfied with the suitability of one candidate over another.
As the names are to be proposed by the Chief Minister of Karnataka, the public would expect that the State Government would examine the various judgments of a judge to make an objective assessment of his suitability. It is essential to find out against each candidate, the judgments authored by that judge in respect of:
How has the judge dealt with corruption cases? As the Lokayukta is the highest anti-corruption officer in the State, the willingness of a judge to tackle corruption at high places is better known through his judgments than by opinion of him held by people around him. Specifically:
How has the judge dealt with corruption cases – investigation and trial? A judge who frequently and rather, unjustifiably, interferes with criminal investigation in corruption cases despite a statutory bar cannot be expected to crackdown on corruption as a Lokayukta.
How has the judge dealt with corruption convictions? Has the judge dealt with corruption cases differently based on the ranking of the public servant – some judges would uphold corruption conviction of a low ranking public servant, but would not apply the same yardstick while dealing with cases of high-ranking public servants.
How has the judge dealt with administrative discretion and abuse of administrative discretion? A large number of complaints that come before the Lokayukta are primarily about abuse of administrative discretion. It helps to know how a judge has dealt with such abuse.
A judge who would not insist on higher standards of administrative conduct and not blink at blatant abuse of such discretion in his judgments ought not be considered for the position of a Lokayukta. He would be of no help to the people.
The Office of the Chief Minister cannot provide any excuse for not engaging in such an analysis; there is no excuse for it. The public of Karnataka certainly expects higher standards for selection of their Lokayukta. It should involve far more intelligence and analysis than what the public is witnessing today.
The writer is a Supreme Court Advocate
