New Delhi: Despite stiff opposition raised by the United Democratic Front (UDF) members and their subsequent boycott, the Kerala Assembly on Tuesday, August 30, passed the controversial Lok Ayukta (Amendment) Bill, which seeks to make the executive the appellate authority over reports by the anti-corruption watchdog.
The criticism levelled by Opposition against the tweaking of the existing law is to do with the understanding that new changes will clip the wings of the Lok Ayukta, as its directions to the government in the cases of corruption would only be recommendatory in nature. The governor or chief minister can basically overrule the Lok Ayukta given that the directions will not be binding on the government. This, the Opposition says, is to encourage corruption, and to save corrupt politicians and government officials, according to The News Minute.
After hours-long heated arguments and debates in the Assembly on Tuesday, the Opposition announced its boycott of the day’s proceedings, saying that it did not want to witness the “killing” of the anti-corruption agency by the government using its brute majority in the assembly.
Before walking out of the House, Leader of Opposition V.D. Satheesan said it was a “black day” in the history of the state assembly.
“The Opposition cannot support the attempt made by the government to eliminate and weaken an anti-corruption agency. We are registering our stern opposition against passing this Bill…we will fight it tooth and nail,” he said.
When the Congress-led opposition alleged that the Bill, which carries away the rights of the constitutional agency, would weaken the anti-corruption mechanism in a democratic system, the CPI(M)-led Left Democratic Front (LDF) government reiterated that the amendment was made to bring the state Lok Ayukta Act in accordance with the Union government’s Lokpal Act.
The UDF was particularly critical about the new amendments introduced in the Bill after it was sent for consideration by the Assembly Subject Committee.
“Some new changes were made in the Bill in connection with the competent authorities to whom the Lok Ayukta should make its recommendations after it was sent to the Subject Committee last week. It was in violation of the Assembly procedures,” the UDF pointed out.
Also read: Kerala Minister K.T. Jaleel Resigns After Lokayukta Report Says He Abused Power
Congress legislators Ramesh Chennithala and P.C. Vishnunath raised a point of order saying that the changes in the Bill were in violation of the rules, but Speaker M.B. Rajesh rejected it and gave a ruling in this regard.
Law minister P. Rajeeve rubbished the claims of the Opposition, saying that the Subject Committee had the power to make changes in the Bill.
Arguments in favour and against the amendments
While the law minister said that the changes were aimed at bringing the Kerala Lok Ayukta on par with other states and to streamline its processes, the Opposition is least convinced.
According to The News Minute, Rajeeve had said on August 25, “The first Pinarayi Vijayan government had taken up the issue, but now the advocate general has said that the present powers of the Lok Ayukta stand in the way of natural justice and are also not in tune with the Constitution. Besides, there are two judgments to this effect from the Kerala high court. Based on all this, the amendment to the Kerala Lokayukta Ordinance was sent to the governor.”
The Opposition leader Satheesan argued that it was not right to give powers to the legislative assembly to reject or accept the findings of the Lok Ayukta which was evolved through a judicial procedure. This, Rajeeve in the assembly countered by saying that when the House discusses the agency’s findings, it could become a public debate.
The Opposition also asked if the Bill was passed, how could it be expected that the assembly take a decision against the chief minister if he is found guilty by the anti-corruption watchdog in any case. As per the Bill passed on Tuesday, the state assembly will be the competent authority to take s decision on the Lok Ayukta’s findings against the chief minister.
The tweaking of the law also drew criticism from non-politicians too. “To kill is easy, but to give life is difficult. If the powers are tweaked, the best thing is to dissolve this institution as it costs a huge sum of money to the exchequer. And to keep it going without powers is of no use, hence it is better to wind it up,” former Kerala Upa Lok Ayukta (retired Justice) K.P. Balachandran told The News Minute.
As per the Kerala Lok Ayukta (Amendment) Ordinance, 2022 – which was refused to be re-promulgated by governor Arif Mohammed Khan recently – the state government could either accept or reject the declaration by the anti-corruption agency in the cases, finding those holding public office as guilty.
“The governor, chief minister or the state government would be the competent authority and he or it may either accept or reject the declaration, after giving an opportunity of being heard,” it had said.
“Where the competent authority is the governor, or the chief minister or the government of Kerala, he or it may either accept or reject the declaration, after giving an opportunity of being heard,” the ordinance had said.
In other cases, the competent authority shall send a copy of such a report to the government which may either accept or reject the declaration after giving an opportunity of being heard, it had added.
When the Left government had come up with an Ordinance earlier this year to amend the existing Lok Ayukta Act, which had come into being 23 years ago, the Opposition Congress and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) alleged that the government decided to curb the powers of the agency as complaints about its several irregularities were pending before it.
They had also claimed that the agency was considering seriously the charge that the money from the Chief Minister’s Distress Relief Fund was disbursed among underserved persons.
During the tenure of the previous LDF government, the then higher education minister K.T. Jaleel had to resign from the cabinet, days after the state Lok Ayukta’s finding that he had abused his position as a public servant to favour a relative.
(With PTI inputs)