COMMENTS

Have heard statements like Karnataka LA is toothless and it can not prosecute the official allegedly involved in corruption with State Government's sanction.

Today Sat down to read what the Lok Ayukta Act has to say on that count. The Karnataka Lokayukta Act, posted on LA website has interesting section under prosecution

14. Initiation of Prosecution.-If after investigation into any complaint the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta is satisfied that the public servant has committed any criminal offence and should be prosecuted in a court of law for such offence, then, he may pass an order to that effect and initiate prosecution of the public servant concerned and if prior sanction of any authority is required for such prosecution, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any law, such sanction shall be deemed to have been granted by the appropriate authority on the date of such order.

Isn't this empowers LA to initiate prosecution? Or Am I being very naive or stating legal jargon in simplistic way?

• thumb_up 34 Likes
• · login or register to post comments

Lokayukta cannot take the person to court & apply the criminal law on him. Only the below will happen

i)          if the Chief Minister or a Minister resign his office of the Chief Minister, or Minister, as the case may be;

ii)       if a public servant falling under items (e) and (f), but not falling under items (d) and (g) of clause (12) of section 2, be deemed to have vacated his office; and  

iii)     if a public servant falling under items (d) and (g) of clause (12) of section 2, be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of the appointing authority.

So some are suspended for namesake & then reinstated very soon. They escape the LAW becuse they cannot be taken to court.

• thumb_up 40 Likes
• · login or register to post comments

IDS,

The clauses you have quoted are not under prosecution heading. These belong to

13.  Public servant to vacate office if directed by Lokayukta etc.

 (1) Where after investigation into a complaint the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta is satisfied that the complaint involving an allegation against the public servant is substantiated and that the public servant concerned should not continue to hold the post held by him, the Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta shall make a declaration to that effect in his report under sub-section (3) of section 12. Where the competent authority is the Governor, State Government or the Chief Minister, it may either accept or reject the declaration after giving an opportunity of being heard.  In other cases, the competent authority shall send a copy of such report to the State Government, which may either accept or reject the declaration.  If it is not rejected within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the report, or the copy of the report, as the case may be, it shall be deemed to have been accepted on the expiry of the said period of three months.  

 

(2) If the declaration so made is accepted or is deemed to have been accepted, the fact of such acceptance or the deemed acceptance shall immediately be intimated by Registered post by the Governor, the State Government or the Chief Minister if any of them is the competent authority and the State Government in other cases then, notwithstanding anything contained in any law, order, notification, rule or contract of appointment, the public servant concerned shall, with effect from the date of intimation of such acceptance or of the deemed acceptance of the declaration, 

• thumb_up 39 Likes
• · login or register to post comments

 I have already signed the petition and also drawn attention to another post of empowering Comptroller & Auditor General of India, the century old Whistle Blower (Britishers legacy) whose Audit Reports are completely documented and evidenced.  

- If these paragraphs are taken seriously and his efficiency cum performance audit reports are to be acted upon, every second official in governmental heirarchy can be kept under suspension and the money held under objection running into thousands of crores of rupees are recovered from the perpetrators by finalising cases through a fast track court to be assisted by the officers of CAG, India's deficit budget can be wiped out.

WHY NOT DECENTRALISE corruption? Here is a suggestion and I am open to discussion:

- Decentralise licensing/sanctioning power for anything and everything that needs approval -  distribute the power of sanctioning amongst 2/3 licensing Rajas (conditions apply)

- If I want a building license with a few deviations, I should have the liberty of approaching all the three 'Rajas' and to request them to quote their rates.

- After tender evaluation, I will approve the least corruption Raja, award him the work of doing everything, get the license and deliver it to my home so that I can go ahead with breach the law openly when this Raja comes for inspection and turns a Nelsons eye.  

- The above suggestion clearly brings out the fact that each and every one of us have the tendency to compromise our moral and ethical values for gain and would not mind bribing in some form or the other during our life time.  Ultimately, Law will catch up with the law breaker and screws him whereas the bribe taker would have got his wife a Jarataari Saree.  

- It will be a case of 'Choori karbooja per giraatho kya, karbooja choori per giraatho kya, kaatna karbooja hai'.  Think it over.

- Bang-lureans are the top bribe givers according to a study -Delhi and Mumbai in second and third places. 

- Comment is free but facts are sacred.

- Choice is ours

- Vasanth Mysoremath

• thumb_up 34 Likes
• · login or register to post comments

Good point VM about CAG, more visibility and bandwidth for them would be so nice. CAG itself merits a separate awareness building discussion or campaign of its own.

However, let us avoid converting into a generic talk on corruption. Coming Back to use of Lokayukta as a tool to help citizens fight corruption, how do some other states look, and what would be some other measures to help citizens?

In 2004, Govt of MP had a proposal to have LA and UP-La also deal with "redressal of grievances arising from mal-administration". The amendment was rejected (as per this document on MP Govt website - http://mplokayukt.nic.in/Important_Recommendations_to_make_Institution_more_effective.pdf)

Actually, addressing citizen's complaints is of more value than chasing public office or public servant on charges of corruption or in-efficiency. Working on greivances is more of an outcome basd approach. If I get asked for bribe at BBMP when getting my Khata done, a complaint against BBMP official in question (to Up-Lokayukta) is not going to get my work done. And further, since I would now be 'blacklisted' at BBMP offices, things are likely to get harder for me.

There is one other point about immunity that some government servants enjoy against prosecution. This one too is a contentious issue with points for as well as against it.

To sum it up, the four suggestions so far to make LA more useful are:

1. More bandwidth for them to deal with cases and reduce backlog
2. "suo motu" powers, but with corresponding measures (more transparency) to check on misuse of this authority
3. Grow office of LA into the state wide citizen complaints authority
4. A way for LA, only LA and not everyone, to work around immunity that public servants enjoy in cases where there are valid (as judged by LA) complaints available with clear evidences (again, as judged by LA, and not media or public).

Look fwd to more wisdom and enlightment about Karnataka's LA from other members.

• thumb_up 30 Likes
• · login or register to post comments