Karnataka BJP MLA and son’s bribery scandal: History, powers of the state’s Lokayukta

After the episode, Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai on Friday said, “The incumbent government re-established the Lokayukta (the Anti Corruption Bureau looked at such cases during the previous Congress regime) to check corruption. In the absence of the anti-corruption institution during the Congress regime, so many incidents were hushed up.” He also said, “The Lokayukta is an autonomous institution” while adding that “those who have made the mistake will be punished”.

#UPDATE | Lokayukta officials conduct raid at the residence of Prashanth Maadal in Bengaluru. Around Rs 6 crore in cash recovered, search underway: Karnataka Lokayukta https://t.co/7LthE4h7U3 pic.twitter.com/1TAk22mF6N

— ANI (@ANI) March 3, 2023

What is the Lokayukta?

Lokayuktas are the state equivalents of the central Lokpal. Section 63 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 says, “Every state shall establish a body to be known as the Lokayukta for the State, if not so established, constituted or appointed, by a law made by the State Legislature, to deal with complaints relating to corruption against certain public functionaries, within a period of one year from the date of commencement of this Act.”

Originally, the central legislation, that is the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, wanted to make a Lokayukta in each state mandatory. However, regional parties and the BJP, which was in opposition then, argued that this would be against the spirit of federalism. Thereafter, the law created a broad framework, leaving it to the states to decide the specifics.

What is the central Lokpal Act of 2013?

The central Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 received the final presidential assent on January 1, 2014, following which it came into effect on January 16, 2014. The law was a culmination of decades of demands for more stringent anti-corruption laws, including the anti-corruption movement led by Anna Hazare.

The Act provides for the creation of a ‘Lokpal’ headed by a Chairperson, who is or has been a Chief Justice of India, a judge of the Supreme Court, or an eminent person fulfilling the specified eligibility criteria. The Lokpal should consist of a maximum of 8 members, of which 50% shall be judicial members, provided that at least 50% belong to the SCs, STs, OBCs, minorities, or women.

When the 2013 Act was passed, Lokayuktas were already functioning in some states — including in Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka, where they were very active. Following the Act and the intervention of the Supreme Court, most states have now set up a Lokayukta.

Karnataka’s history of “Lokayukta”

The Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 came into force on January 15, 1986, and was passed with the objective of improving the standards of public administration, by looking into complaints against the administrative actions, including cases of corruption, favoritism and official indiscipline in the administrative machinery.

It was given the powers of investigation and issuing search warrants and also conferred with all the powers of a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

However, the arrest of several top leaders on charges of corruption, and the public protests for a strong Lokpal Bill, made politicians in Karnataka increasingly uncomfortable with the Lokayukta Act of 1984. Coming to power in 2013, the Congress government made attempts to amend the Act to make the Lokayukta more amenable to influence.

One such attempt was the government order of March 14, 2016, wherein the Congress government created an Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) and also issued subsequent notifications transferring the power to probe corruption cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, from Karnataka Lokayukta police to the ACB.

However, when the BJP government came to power, in August 2022, a division bench of the Karnataka High Court in “Chidananda Urs B.G vs The State Of Karnataka” ordered the abolishing of ACB and the revival of an anti-corruption police unit attached to the Karnataka Lokayukta, a quasi-judicial institution that works independent of the state. Since then, the Karnataka Lokayukta’s powers have been restored.

What kind of cases can be investigated under Karnataka’s Lokayukta Act?

Earlier, the Lokayukta could investigate any action which is taken by or with the general or specific approval of,- (i) the Chief Minister; (ii) a Minister or a Secretary; (iii) a member of the State Legislature; or (iv) any other public servant of a class notified by the State Government in consultation with the Lokayukta, in any case where a complaint involving a grievance or an allegation was made.

In 1988, the Act was amended to exclude from its ambit of investigation “any action in respect of which a formal and public inquiry has been ordered with the prior concurrence of the Lokayukta or a Upalokayukta” or any action referred for an inquiry, under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 or any complaint made after a lapse of six months from the date on which the action complained was known to the complainant. It also excludes “any complaint involving an allegation made after the expiry of five years from the date on which the action complained against is alleged to have taken place” among others.

How are complaints made under Karnataka’s Lokayukta Act?

Under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, Section 9 deals with provisions relating to complaints and investigations and allows “any person may make a complaint under this Act to the Lokayukta or a Upalokayukta” in the form of a statement supported by an affidavit and “ in such manner as may be prescribed”.

Where the Lokayukta or a Upalokayukta proposes, after making a preliminary inquiry, that investigation can be carried out in a certain case, he forwards a copy of the complaint to the public servant and the competent authority, following which the public servant will be given an opportunity to reply or to “offer his comments” on the complaint. The Lokayukta or Upalokayukta is also empowered to make an order for the safe keeping of documents relevant to the investigation, as he deems fit. The procedure of conducting an investigation under the Act can also be carried out “either in public or in camera.”

However, the Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta may also refuse to investigate or cease to investigate any complaint involving a grievance or an allegation, if the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, or not in good faith; if there are insufficient grounds for investigating or for continuing the investigation.

When alternate remedies are available to the complainant, which are more proper, the complaint might not be taken up. In any case, where the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta decides not to entertain a complaint or to discontinue any investigation in respect of a complaint he shall record his reasons for the same and communicate them to the public servant and the complainant.

What happens after a complaint is admitted?

Section 10 of the Act allows search warrants to be issued by the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta when they have reasons to believe that anyone, “to whom a summon or notice under this Act, has been or might be issued”, is likely to not produce any necessary property, document or thing which will be necessary or relevant to the proceeding or inquiry or is in possession of any property, money, bullion, jewelry or valuables which have not been lawfully disclosed to the authorities.

The search warrant so issued will authorise a Police Officer to break open locks where the keys are not available, seize any such property, document, money, bullion, jewellery, or other valuables found as a result of such search; place identification marks on any property or document or its copies or extracts and make notes or an inventory of any such property or valuables.

“The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 relating to search and seizure shall apply, so far as may be, to searches and seizures under sub-section (1),” the Act says while adding that a warrant issued under sub-section (1) shall, for all purposes, be deemed a warrant issued by a court under section 93 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

If after investigation, the ombudsman is satisfied that the public servant has committed any criminal offence and should be prosecuted in a court of law, then he may pass an order to that effect and initiate prosecution of the public servant concerned.