The Cabinet-approved amendments to the Goa Lokayukta Act appear to be clear moves by the government to shield those coming under the radar of the Ombudsman. The intentions behind the move are as clear as daylight, and any defence to the contrary is hollow.
The office of the Lokayukta in Goa has been a paper tiger ever since it came into existence way back in October 2011. In stark contrast to the purpose behind installing the Lokayukta, the body has no powers to execute its order. For all the groundwork, it remains a mere recommendatory body. The government has now sought to dilute it even further by inserting clauses such as seeking prior permissions before investigations and making it accountable to those it is supposed to investigate. This will not only pre-empt any probe but will put the government in a comfortable position to decide against whom scrutiny could be allowed.
Corruption and maladministration are common traits in political dispensations, and putting allegations of nepotism and lack of integrity outside the purview would be of the Lokayukta a redundant body.
If we may recall, outgoing Lokayukta Justice Prafulla Kumar Misra when asked about his experience of the job just before he left Goa, had said ..."If you ask me in one sentence, the Goa government should abolish the institution of Lokayukta". Justice Misra left disenchanted because the government, at that time, did not act on a single case out of the 21 reports he had filed against public functionaries. Justice Misra, between March 16, 2016, and September 16, 2020, had indicted a few top leaders in the government and had even given a declaration on some being unfit to hold office.
Cut to the present, and the amended bill will be introduced in the Assembly session starting January 25. Given the political equations on the Floor of the House, smooth passage of the bill is a foregone conclusion. The sad irony is that the BJP government is using its brute majority to insulate itself from the embarrassment caused by the Ombudsman.
Instead of diluting the provisions, the government should have used the Lokayukta reports as tools to set right the wrongs in the system. Maladministration and corruption have to be tackled with an iron hand because of the direct impact on ordinary citizens. The government instead of trying to defang the Lokayukta should have empowered it on the lines of Karnataka and Kerala. For any aggrieved citizen, going to Lokayukta would now become a futile exercise.
The amendment making retired High Court judges eligible for the Lokayukta post in addition to judges of the Supreme Court and chief justices of High Courts is welcome, but again it serves no purpose when the Act itself restricts their powers. Further, it would have made sense if the staff attached to the Ombudsman were independent and neutral. Engaging active service employees who have an obligation to the government defeats the purpose.
The Lokayukta takes an oath to discharge the duty without fear or favour, affection or ill will, but it is unfortunate that the government, by bringing in amendments, is working against these principles and giving an escape route to those indulging in malpractices.
