With the High Court scrapping the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) on August 11, the Karnataka Lokayukta has regained powers it had lost to the state police. Lokayukta Justice B S Patil, who took charge in June, spoke to DH’s Sneha Ramesh on the challenges ahead. Excerpts:
What difference will the High Court order bring about in the working of the Lokayukta?
The Lokayukta will now open its doors to corruption complaints and ensure that a case is registered if there is supporting material. At the operational level, so far, the Lokayukta machinery had been investigating maladministration charges, grievances and allegations against public servants, and framing reports under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. Now, when it comes to corruption charges, we work under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and our officials will ensure that the Lokayukta police register criminal cases and take up police investigation.
Are complaints being transferred from the ACB to Lokayukta?
We are awaiting action by the government. Lokayukta police across the state have started registering cases. However, people are yet to come forward. We have hardly received three or four complaints over the last week.
How do you intend to clear cases pending before the Lokayukta?
Over the years, important posts have remained vacant. The Lokayukta’s post was vacant for close to four months before I took charge, and the Upalokayukta’s post was vacant for about 20 months. After Justice N Ananda retired, I was discharging duties as Upalokayukta alone for 16 months. Even now, there is one post vacant. Apart from this, several posts of additional registrars are vacant. So, cases have piled up over the years. Shortage of manpower is yet another problem. However, now, we have motivated all our officials and given them targets. We are also discussing practices for quick disposal of cases and requested the government to fill the vacant posts.
Rumour is that not many officials are keen on a posting to the Lokayukta. Is it true? How do you plan to handle this?
I don’t think there is any hesitation. In fact, we are particular about the officials who work with us since they need to be highly motivated. Lokayukta officials have a special role to play in society –- the responsibility of probing other government servants. Hence, we have informed the government to appoint efficient officials with a clean image.
You have conducted surprise visits to hospitals and taken suo motu cognisance of poor facilities. Which other departments do you plan to look at?
A number of areas. In fact, it is our responsibility to investigate each department where maladministration is reported. Be it health, education, revenue, transport or police, we will ensure that maladministration is brought to light and suitable action is taken.
How do you reach remote places where people do not come forward to register cases?
In such areas, we have tried to dig deeper into what has been reported. There are instances where we have registered multiple suo motu cases based on a single grievance we have received. This helps us reach out and solve problems.
Do you think the Lokayukta’s suo motu powers should be extended so that you can investigate elected representatives, not just civil servants and government staff?
We register suo motu cases against maladministration, dereliction of duty, etc., as provided under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. However, in cases of corruption, we need a complainant and source material, and the investigation will then proceed under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
What is the Lokayukta’s stand on the allegation that contractors are paying a commission of 40% to officials?
It is no doubt a shocking revelation. We suggest that the aggrieved approach us with supporting documents. Just shooting in the air does not yield results. Whether it is a corruption of 4% or 40%, the magnitude does not matter to set the law in motion. We will treat everything seriously and ensure that the matter is investigated thoroughly.
In February, the Lokayukta put up details of cases in which no action was initiated by the government. How do you plan to deal with such inaction?
The decision to put such details in the public domain has worked. A number of orders have been issued, but the process is still slow. We are also writing to the government to initiate action.
What support are you expecting from the public and the government?
We expect people to come forward and raise their voice against maladministration, undue delays, oppression, and discriminatory behaviour. More so against corruption, nepotism and favouritism. Also, they should take the issue to a logical end and not back out in the midst of the battle. From the government, we
are hoping that they will fill up the vacancies at the earliest and provide better infrastructure. Also, the government should act faster on the reports
we submit.