Wrong Way: On Kerala Lokayukta Act

The Kerala government’s proposal to amend its Lokayukta Act through an ordinance appears suspicious and hasty. Even though the Left Democratic Front (LDF) government is citing legal opinion to justify the proposed amendments, it gives an impression that it is in an undue haste to remove the finality attached to a provision that deals with corruption. Allows the opposing judicial body to give directions. If any charge is proved, the public servant will have to vacate the post. The criticism by the opposition that the change could dilute the Lokayukta Act appears to be valid, as Section 14 of the Lokayukta Act is its strictest provision. Both the Congress-led United Democratic Front and the BJP have appealed to the governor not to issue an ordinance passed by the cabinet. Opposition parties have suggested that the motion may be linked to the ongoing inquiry by the Lokayukta against cabinet members. Also, the present regime has been adversely affected by this special provision. In April 2021, Higher Education and Minority Welfare Minister KT Jalil had to resign after being found guilty of nepotism by the Lokayukta. The present regime seems to have realized the implications of the binding nature of the Lokayukta’s ‘declaration’ only after this episode that a public servant, against whom the charge has been proved, should not continue in office. It is strange that the government now says that this section is unconstitutional even though it could have been challenged by Mr. Jalil himself.

The government has defended the proposed ordinance on the ground that the clause amounts to removal of a minister duly appointed by the governor on the advice of the chief minister, and violates Articles 163 and 164 of the Constitution. Further, there is no provision for appeal. It is proposed to amend this to the effect that the Governor, the government or the authority can take a decision on the findings of the Lokayukta within three months. It also seeks to provide for an appeal. While these are valid points, there is bound to be a question on the adoption of the ordinance route. It is also curious that this provision is now considered unconstitutional, when E.K. The previous LDF government led by Nayanar had enacted the law in 1999. Adverse judicial finding long before the Supreme Court gave way to the automatic disqualification of an elected representative if convicted. It was only in 2013 that the top court struck down a clause in the election law, which protected a serving MLA from disqualification after being convicted till an appeal was filed and disposed of. Governance that is truly settled for corruption-free governance should generally not be concerned with a law that directs an independent judicial forum to step down a public servant. If he has an objection to the procedure as well, he should not rush to introduce the relevant amendments in the Assembly.