Opinion ‘The (Lokayukta) appointment has lost all grace and dignity’

I am thankful for the confidence put in me for the high office of the Gujarat Lokayukta.

When Hon’ble the then Chief Justice Justice S.J. Mukhopadhyay kindly invited me two years ago for my consent for this purpose,and discussed,I was not interested,having no ambition or desire,and was reluctant,being averse to any controversy. With kindness and great persuasion I was given to understand that the choice would be unanimous and without any objection from any quarter,including the state government. I had my own reason to believe that (it has turned out to be wrong),and I had consented at some personal sacrifice,thinking that I could serve a very useful public purpose and having hope that the Gujarat Lokayukta Act,1986,could be upgraded and made really effective and strong,in line with universal public opinion and consensus in the country.

Soon,it became clear that the public functionaries (whose conduct the Lokayukta may have to investigate) had strong objections against my appointment… It was said that I had “anti-government bias”…

The mindset and attitude displayed by the state government are counter-significant,for example,

* “not acceptable to me”,“my way or highway”;

* The draft ordinance,during the pendency of the petition,to amend the scheme of the appointment of Lokayukta (to exclude the chief justice and load the selection committee with majority of the ruling party and giving primacy to the political executive); (not assented to by the governor).

* Referring a large number of complaints against the public functionaries to a commission of inquiry (so as to exclude them from being investigated by the Lokayukta);

* Persistently and tenaciously approaching the Supreme Court… at huge public expense. It may be compared to the budget for the Lokayukta office or even the high court…. It would be an eye-opener.

* The new Lokayukta bill passed by the Gujarat legislative assembly (again to exclude the chief justice and load the selection committee with a majority of the ruling party and giving primacy to the political executive); (not assented to by

the governor).

* Even after three judgments of the Supreme Court,the reluctance of the state government to notify the Lokayukta appointment in the official Gujarat Government Gazette is surprising,but not unexpected.

* The letter of the Gujarat government dated July 26,2013 (delivered to my Ahmedabad residence while I was in USA) does not indicate any invitation or interest by the government. It states that “the Hon’ble Governor of Gujarat has appointed you as the Lokayukta… The swearing in ceremony for the purpose needs to be organised at the Raj Bhavan… to enable you to assume the office.” As if the government has no interest or role in the matter! No invitation and no notification by

the government!

Maybe there is a lesson for the new Lokpal and Lokayukta bills to consider whether and to what extent the public functionaries who are potential subjects of inquiry,should have any voice in the selection and appointment. Giving a voice and primacy to such public functionaries to decide who is to be their investigator,would give an impression that they want it to be their “caged parrot” and the institution of the Lokayukta would lose all credibility and respect of the people and deter many judges from accepting.

I am averse to any controversy and try to keep away. The present controversy has denigrated the office of the Lokayukta and adversely affected its credibility. The appointment has lost all the grace and dignity. The objection alleging anti-government bias (though negatived by the courts),really hurts. Some think that if a person is not pro-government,he is necessarily anti-government. They can’t accept that there is a third category,neither pro- nor anti-,but independent and neutral. Their mindset is clear — their way or no

other way.

For effective functioning and for satisfying the great public expectation of cleansing public life,the office of the Lokayukta is required to be treated and accepted with due grace,dignity and respect,and free from any controversy,and with whole-hearted support. In fact,it should be common cause between the Lokayukta and the government (distinct from the public functionaries),as seen from the legislative intent. Unfortunately this cause does not appear to be shared by the government. A Lokayukta unwanted by the government cannot get all the necessary and timely support and cooperation from the reluctant government. The Lokayukta will be rendered ineffective,and the great public expectations would be frustrated; and I would be at the receiving end for being ineffective.

I frankly admit that I will not be able to fulfil the public duty,public need and high public expectation from the Lokayukta in the circumstances. How can I take the responsibility and become the Lokayukta when my objectivity and credibility are not accepted by the government and by the public functionaries whose conduct the Lokayukta may have to investigate? Findings and recommendations — for or against a public functionary — will always be under a question mark.

I take as a compliment the allegation of the so-called “bias” of being “anti-government” because of my support to such social causes. If there is perceived injustice to vulnerable people at the hands of the government,I sympathise with them,and try,in a small way,to serve,support and help their causes. A judge should have such sensitivity for justice and that does not make him biased and he does not lose his objectivity. He remains true to his oath to do justice without fear or favour. I derive satisfaction from such sensitivity and such work. Every human being should have such heart and feelings,more particularly those who have to

render justice.

I humbly withdraw my consent for the appointment as the Gujarat Lokayukta and decline to assume the office. Kindly accept my request and relieve me.

Most sincerely,

R.A. Mehta