Karnataka Lokaykta Justice Shivaraj Patil has resigned barely two months after assuming office as he was caught in a controversy over purchasing sites in violation of norms. Every Lokayuta has a past and every corrupt person that the Lokayukta catches has a future. If the past of those who become the Lokayukta bothers us more than the future of the corrupt there is nothing surprising in it. When those who occupy watchdog positions themselves have questionable track records those caught by them are more likely to go unpunished. So, the past of such high officials should matter and it has rightly forced Justice Patil to resign. This is a black spot in the history of Karnataka Lokayukta which in the recent times emerged as a model for the rest of the country.
Many people have argued that the charges against Justice Patil are minor. There is a rule that those who have got a residential site already should not purchase another from a government agency or a co-operative society. This is fair enough because these residential sites are offered at a concessional price. Justice Patil had purchased two more sites from two different housing cooperative societies despite owning one already, in violation of the rules.
One of these sites, of course, was purchased in his wife’s name. Once he came to know that the media had got wind of it, he got the site in his wife’s name surrendered and even claimed that he was not aware of the rules. When a newspaper published the story many, including senior leaders of the ruling BJP, sought to play it down. Their argument was that this violation was rampant and that since he had surrendered the site in question the matter should be considered closed. Well, the question then is why we should have the rule at all if its violation is so common place that even senior judges are not following it. Interestingly, a group of officials involved in the multi-crore mining scam started arguing that if Justice Patil could be absolved of the charges just by returning the site they should also be absolved of corruption charges if they returned the bribes that they had taken. Then Justice Patil had no option but to resign.
The first political reaction to the media reports on the violations by Justice Patil came from the Congress as it said its leaders were not consulted properly when Justice Patil was appointed as Lokayukta. The law has it that the Government should take the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of the High Court in the appointment of the Lokayukta. The Congress charge might be valid but why did the party not make its unhappiness public at the time of Justice Patil’s appointment. By raising this issue after the media started shedding light about Justice Patil’s track record, the Congress exposed its own failure as the Opposition more than exposing the Government’s. But there were also reports that even the High Court Chief Justice was not consulted properly and the then Chief Justice Kehar Singh had written to the government expressing his displeasure not so much about the selection of Justice Patil but about the way he was selected.
Obviously, Chief Minister Yediyurappa had some special interest in appointing Justice Patil as Lokayukta before stepping down as chief minister two days later. This is not to suggest that Justice Patil would have acted in Yeddyurappa’s favour in case he had continued in office but to show that how the governments do not bother to check the antecedents of the people before appointing them to high offices like that of the Lokayukta. The incident reminds one of the centre’s bungling in appointing tainted former bureaucrat P.J. Thomas as Central Vigilance Commission who had to step down later following the Supreme Court’s intervention. Now it is said that many judges own multiple sites in violation of the rule that Justice Patil was accused of having violated. Will these judges also resign? They should and there should be a drastic cleansing of the system.
Ever since its inception in 1986, the institution of Karnataka Lokayukta functioned with one Lokayukta and one Upa Lokayukta. However, at the time of Justice Patil’s appointment as Lokayukta, the Government also appointed a second Upa Lokayukta. There were questions raised about the Government’s sudden decision to have a second Upa Lokayukta. The answer that the media reports suggested was that since Justice Patil and the first Upa Lokayukta, Justice S.B. Majage, were Lingayats, the Government wanted to balance the caste equation in the anti-corruption agency by appointing a non-Lingayat as Upa Lokayukta. Also, this time it seemed as if the Government wanted to have a Lingayat as Lokayukta because for the past two terms members of the Vokkaliga community held the post.
In the last three instances the chief ministers and the Lokayuktas appointed by them came from the same caste. It might be a sheer coincidence and it might not have affected the functioning of the Lokayukta. Yet the fact that Karnataka’s dominant caste politics does not stay away from even an institution like the Lokayukta says its own story about the state and its people.
Karnataka has seen six Lok Ayuktas so far including Justice Patil. The first three were from outside Karnataka –Justice D A Kaushal, Justice Rabindranath Pyne, Justice S.A. Hakeem. The next three were from Karnataka – Justice N. Venkatachala, Justice N. Santhosh Hegde and Justice Patil. Although the Lokayukta got a facelift under the leadership of judges from Karnataka, now it seems sensible to suggest that only those from outside Karnataka should be appointed to the post. This will keep caste politics away from their appointment and put to rest all doubts relating to the proximities of various kinds between the Lokayuktas and the powerful political leaders of the State. For example, although the Lokayukta’s reputation soared high under Justice Santhosh Hegde, his political proximities were a point of repeated discussion.
The most disquieting development following Justice Patil’s resignation is that the Government is reportedly finding it difficult to find a suitable successor to him. Most of the Judges eligible for the post are apparently not showing much interest in becoming the Lokayukta because they are worried that their past too would be scrutinized by the media. This is really a sad commentary on society as a whole. There is such a dearth of honest souls even among the higher judiciary!
(After a decade’s stint in journalism, Narayana A. is a member of the faculty of social sciences at a university in Bangalore)
Comments
Add new comment