Lok Ayukta is a legal system for speedy delivery of justice. Kerala has, up till now claimed with pride that the State’s Lok Ayukta law was the strongest in the country. But the latest draft ordinance from the incumbent LDF government proposing repeal of Article 14 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act 1999 could not only impede the Lok Ayukta proceedings, but will dampen its legal powers to punish the corrupt. The ordinance empowers the State Government to “either accept or reject the verdict of the Lok Ayukta after giving an opportunity of being heard.” Currently, under Section 14 of the Act, a guilty public servant is bound to quit office if directed by the Lok Ayukta. The Kerala Lok Ayukta in its verdict on April 11, 2021 had directed the then Minister for Higher Education and Welfare of Minorities K T Jaleel to step down from his post for abusing the power of his office. Public perception on the ordinance is “this order against Jaleel has irked the LDF and its Chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan, so decided to puncture the powers of Lok Ayukta.”
However, majority of the legal fraternity is of the “considered view” that the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act has to be maintained in its present form and there should not be any amendment. Salini T S, a young lady advocate acquainted with the Kerala Lok Ayukta feels “it (Lok Ayukta) is a legal forum primarily dealing with corruption in government and related services, and (in the Lok Ayukta) justice is delivered with little or no delay. We know that justice delayed is justice denied.” Talking to PNI News the lady lawyer elaborated on the need of Lok Ayukta to effectively deal with corruption and maladministration. Excerpts:
As lawyer what is your observation on the ordinance brought in to amend Kerala Lok Ayukta Act 1999?
Lok Ayukta has been constituted to deal with cases relating to corruption and maladministration in a time bound manner. To my experience in the Lok Ayukta as a lawyer, the forum has been efficiently and judiciously delivering relief to the aggrieved. Normally, any case relating to corruption or maladministration is heard in the High Court or Supreme Court, and both the courts are heavily burdened, thanks to the massive number of pending cases. So, it’s but natural, may take many years for the cases to come up even for hearing. On the contrary, in the Lok Ayukta the cases are judiciously disposed with no time lag. From the Lok Ayukta the petitioner can expect relief in minimum possible time. According to me the draft ordinance in its present form will take away the powers of the Lok Ayukta as a redressal forum. As per the proposed ordinance the directions or orders of the Lok Ayukta can be challenged before a competent authority- the Governor or Chief Minister or the Kerala government.
Don’t you feel, the ordinance will give an opportunity for appeal, in case the Lokayuktha direction/order is found violating natural justice?
Yes, if there is a violation of natural justice in an order that has to be challenged before a competent authority. In normal cases the High Court can review the Lok Ayukta order, if any procedural violation is cited. The aggrieved party can also approach the Supreme Court filing a special leave petition, like K T Jaleel. There is crass contradiction in this draft ordinance. Unlike the 1999 Act, the ordinance empowers the competent authority — the Governor or Chief Minister or the Kerala government to overrule the Lok Ayukta. The Governor or the Chief Minister “accept or reject the declaration (of the Lok Ayukta)” to remove the public servant found guilty from the post. This defeats the very objective of the Lok Ayukta . With this ordinance in force an effective forum to “to investigate the grievances of the public about administrative wrongs and excesses” will become toothless. As former Kerala Upa-Lokayukta Justice KP Balachandran said “To kill is easy, but to give life is difficult. To keep it Lok Ayukta) going without powers is of no use.” I strongly feel a system like Lok Ayukta is a must to check Corruption and Maladministration.
What are the current powers of the Kerala Lok Ayukta?
As I mention earlier, Lok Ayukta is a statutory body established under an Act of the State Legislative Assembly for effective and speedy redressal of grievances or complaints of corruption, nepotism, mal-administration and/or abuse of power, among others, against public servants, including the Chief Minister, MLA or a state Minister. The Lok Ayukta, on accepting the grievance/complaint, if deemed necessary, will order an investigation/inquiry to the appropriate authority. As Per the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, the orders issued by the Lok Ayukta or an Upa- Lok Ayukta after investigation are binding on the government or the competent authorities, which include the Governor, the Chief Minister or the Minister of the department concerned. There is a provision in the Act that makes the directions of the Lok Ayukta binding. When the Lok Ayukta finds the public servant in question guilty of the allegations, the former will formally intimate the Governor or the Chief Minister as a “declaration” – a declaration that the public servant is unfit to hold the post and this declaration is binding on the government in power.
Recently during a television discussion a lady was accusing the Lok Ayukta for not entertaining her case and passing unsavory comments and observation on the complainant. Have you come across any such incidents?
Of late, it has become a fashion to criticize or accuse the judicial bodies, many times with little knowledge of the system. In the case of Kerala Lok Ayukta there is prescribed format to file complaints. The case should either fall under the category of grievance of allegation. The case should be supported with necessary and relevant evidences. Otherwise the petition will not be entertained. “Grievance” means a claim by a person that he sustained injustice or undue hardship in consequence of maladministration. “Allegation” in relation to a public functionary and with reference to any action taken by him, means any affirmation that such public functionary in his capacity as a public functionary is guilty of corruption, or lack of integrity.
