Forty thieves and a single Ali Baba

Rampant corruption made Lokayukta Faizanuddin Madhya Pradesh pen a note of despair in his annual report for 1997-98: 8216;8216;It would ...

Rampant corruption made Lokayukta Faizanuddin Madhya Pradesh pen a note of despair in his annual report for 1997-98: 8216;8216;It would be no exaggeration to say that it corruption has become a profitable profession for many people occupying important positions,8217;8217; he said. 8216;8216;So much so that as soon as a new plan is formulated, the attention of people in power is attracted to how much money could be funnelled out of it for selfish ends.8217;8217;

The above was a serious enough indictment by one assigned the job of clearing up administration as he summed up his first year8217;s experience in office. The Lokayukta had created history by seeking sanction of prosecution of two ministers but his effort was thwarted when Governor Qureshi sought the Cabinet8217;s advice, received a negative response and squashed it. Then fate8217;s unseen hand put me in Qureshi8217;s place. The Lokayukta had further added to the earlier paragraph, 8216;8216;Even where charges of corruption are proved, a case cannot be filed against the concerned public servants without the administrative approval of the competent authority, and that power is sometimes used to save the accused.8217;8217;

He had observed, 8216;8216;8230;when public servants occupying small jobs are in the dock, permission to take action against them is readily granted, but when big fish are in the net, it is, on one pretext or the other, refused8217;8217;.

When the media asked me what I would do about the situation, I had in my impromptu reply said that the case would have to be gone into thoroughly. Subsequently, I sought the opinion of the highest law officers of the land which8212;happily enough8212;supported my thinking. As if what followed were as per a design, soon the Lokayukta sent up a case involving two other ministers in a similar charge of alleged land scam seeking sanction of prosecution. Was I to seek the Cabinet8217;s advice when the decision had to be mine? To be on the safe side, I sought it. The advice was unduly delayed while the High Court waited, and the Lokayukta repeatedly pressed me for sanction. Then came the Cabinet8217;s recommendation8212;on expected lines: 8216;8216;No ground for grant of sanction.8217;8217; What this meant in essence was, to hell with the Lokayukta. I took my decision and sanctioned the prosecution of the two ministers.

There was uproar from the ministers, led by the chief minister. The press spoke of 8220;an unprecedented politico-legal battle between the CM and the Governor8221; and the case, pursued by the Lokayukta, went to the Supreme Court. After pending for a long time, it was directed to be taken back to the high court, was lost there too after a time span and is probably still awaiting decision in the apex court.

Out of sheer curiosity, I turned to an Assembly debate on the MP Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta Bill, when CM Arjun Singh introduced it on April 14, 1981. The first subject of the long-winded speeches was which party was responsible for the long delay in moving the Bill. Next to that was the rather tenacious campaign to insulate the CM and his ministers, the Speaker and his deputy and for good measure, all the legislators against the Lokayukta8217;s scrutiny. They wanted the Lokayukta8217;s wings to be clipped vis-a-vis the 8216;elected8217; bosses.

Now that the President and the PM have both publicly advocated their respective offices to be covered by the Lokpal, one expects those who are 8216;more loyal than the king8217; to desist from their well-publicised outrage. A view advocated, somewhat reticently, was to exclude all legislators. 8216;8216;They have no authority to take decisions,8221; it was argued, 8216;8216;so why expose MLAs to unnecessary harassment? Why not exclude them?8217;8217; But it was mentioned that there was a sudden spurt in their financial standing soon after they were elected, which called for some explanation. The conspicuous case of Tulmohan Ram was narrated who had used forged signatures of as many as 17 MPs to get quotas, permits and licences, for which he was subsequently prosecuted. Had legislators been insulated, there would have been Tulmohan Rams galore!