The Opposition in Kerala says the CPI(M) can no more claim to be anti-corruption because it is looking to dilute the Lok Ayukta Act.
The sign board to Kerala Lokayukta which functions in the state assembly building in Thiruvananthapuram (South First)
When the Kerala Assembly holds a 10-day special session from 22 August to enact laws to replace the 11 ordinances that lapsed because Governor Arif Mohammed Khan refused to re-promulgate them, what will attract public scrutiny is the ruling CPI(M)’s image as a long-time anti-corruption crusader.
Among the lapsed ordinances, the most controversial was the amendment to Kerala’s anti-corruption Lok Ayukta Act.
In the special session, a law will be enacted apparently diluting the existing powers of the Lokayukta, and the opposition UDF will use the occasion to establish that corruption is no more a matter of concern for CPI(M) leaders in general, and Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan in particular.
The water will be muddied further for Vijayan and his party as the ruling front’s second-largest constituent — the CPI — has expressed reservations against converting the lapsed Lokayukta ordinance into legislation in its current form.
CPI state secretary Kanam Rajendran believes that a critical provision in the ordinance — which empowers the Governor, chief minister and the Cabinet to reject any verdict or recommendation of the Lokayukta without citing any valid reason — must be removed as it would erode the Left’s credibility as an anti-corruption crusader.
The party prefers a permanent expert committee that can scrutinise Lokayukta verdicts. But there is almost no chance of the chief minister accepting the demand.
It has been almost four years since Vijayan, who is also a Politburo member of the CPI(M), wrote a lengthy article in the party’s Malayalam weekly magazine Chintha claiming credit for implementing the most robust ombudsman system in the country to end high-level corruption, nepotism, and violation of administrative rules.
Saying that no other state government in the country provided such vast powers to the ombudsman system, he had also sought public cooperation to further strengthen it.
In his words, anti-corruption mechanisms in other states were mere watchdogs, and they seldom bit the offenders. Vijayan claimed he had provided vast powers to Kerala Lokayukta, and said it would bite if the need arose.
According to him, anybody affected by the corruption and mismanagement of ministers, public servants, and officials could approach the Lokayukta directly and secure justice without any technicality or delay. He had also promised stern action against those found guilty by the ombudsman.
Though the Act establishing the Lokayukta system was passed when Vijayan’s political mentor EK Nayanar was the chief minister, it was enforced strictly when Vijayan took the post for the first time.
Hardly a year after retaining power in the state for another five years, Vijayan now faces the allegation that he weakened the once-powerful Kerala Lok Ayukta Act of 1999, reducing the barking dog into a tame one by taking away all its powers and converting it into an advisory agency. For the party and the government, the old article is now a considerable embarrassment.
On 19 January this year, Vijayan presided over a Cabinet meeting online from Mayo Clinic in Minnesota in the US, where he was admitted for cancer treatment, and informed his colleagues that an ordinance would be promulgated to make certain amendments in the Lok Ayukta Act. The Cabinet instantly approved the proposal, but it was not mentioned in the official press release.
Details of the proposed ordinance were leaked, creating a furore in the state. Opposition parties used the proposed ordinance to question the CPI(M)’s proclaimed stand on integrity and transparency in public life.
Once the ordinance came into force, the Lokayukta was reduced to an advisory body. It lost some strong provisions to punish those proven guilty, mainly corrupt political executives.
In the face of extreme public resentment against a government that claims it dedicated itself to eradicating corruption, CPI(M) state secretary Kodiyeri Balakrishnan justified the move by claiming that the current Kerala Lokayukta held absolute powers and was capable of unseating even an elected government by interpreting materials submitted before it.
By making the amendments, the government diluted the autonomy and independent character of the agency, which made the stellar performance so far in ending corruption in governance, critics said.
According to them, the ordinance was promulgated when several complaints about government irregularities — including allegations against even the chief minister and Higher Education Minister R Bindhu — were pending before the Lokayukta.
While Vijayan was facing allegations of misusing funds, Bindu faced charges of nepotism for recommending her kin as vice-chancellor of Kannur University.
In a representation to Governor Arif Mohammed Khan, Kerala’s Opposition leader V D Satheesan urged him not to approve the ordinance as it was part of the CPI(M)’s attempts to undermine the ombudsman’s powers and ensure protection for corrupt elements in the corridors of power. However, the governor approved it that time but refused to re-promulgate last week.
Even lawyers have criticized the proposed amendment. A former Special Attorney with Kerala Lokayukta, T Asaf Ali, said the amendments would make the chief minister a superpower above the entity.
Former Kerala High Court judge Kemal Pasha accused the government of deceiving the people of Kerala who believed in the anti-corruption rhetoric of the ruling party.
“In the beginning, Kerala visualized the Lokayukta as a judicial body that could remove any executive, including the chief minister, for corruption. As per the amendments, the chief minister or any executive can continue in office even if the corruption charges are proven,” said activist and advocate Harish Vasudevan.
“Such an amendment defeats the purpose of the Lok Ayukta Act, and it is undoubtedly a regressive attempt,” he added.
The controversy over the ordinance took a significant turn in February when KT Jaleel, higher education minister in the first cabinet of Vijayan, put up a Facebook post saying that it would be dangerous to bestow such sweeping powers on a person like the then Lokayukta.
Though Jaleel didn’t mention the person’s name, his reference was to Justice Cyriac P Joseph, the incumbent Lokayukta, who passed a substantial verdict in April 2021 that resulted in Jaleel’s resignation from the Cabinet.
Joseph had found nepotism in the appointment of Jaleel’s relative KT Abid as general manager in the state-owned Kerala Minorities Development Finance Corporation.
In the Facebook post, Jaleel equated Joseph’s appointment as Lokayukta to the possible tragedies if a weapon given to Mahatma Gandhi for self-defence reached the hands of Nathuram Godse. The Opposition then pointed out to Jaleel that his political master Vijayan had appointed Joseph.
Jaleel also uploaded an old high court verdict on Facebook, hinting at links between the acquittal of Indian Union Muslim League leader PK Kunjalikutty in a sensational rape case by Joseph when he was a high court judge, and the appointment of Joseph’s brother’s wife as vice-chancellor of Mahatma Gandhi University in Kottayam.
While the controversial decision has taken a new twist now, what raised many an eyebrow in Kerala was the transformation that happened in the case of the CPI(M), the largest constituent of Kerala’s ruling LDF, which once took an uncompromising stand against corruption and always wanted stringent laws to fight those engaging in it.
Veteran journalist and activist BRP Bhaskar recalled that CPI(M) stalwart EMS Namboodirpad, who became the state’s first chief minister on 5 April, 1957, issued a policy statement on the same day warning his Cabinet colleagues against being susceptible to extraneous influence.
EMS wanted his ministers to rise above all suspicions of the public. A political resolution adopted by the party’s national congress in 1995 termed the CPI(M) a revolutionary party and warned its leaders and cadres against corruption and nepotism.
“There is no dilution in our resolve to fight corruption. However, things have changed a lot by now in the country. In the given context, the union government can attenuate or abolish the state government by using the provisions encompassed in the Lok Ayukta Act using the governor’s office,” claimed Balakrishnan in an article in February, justifying the ordinance.
He also asked why Kerala should have such a powerful Lok Ayukta Act compared to other states.
As per the then prevailing Lok Ayukta Act in Kerala, any citizen could approach the agency with complaints of corruption, nepotism, maladministration, and abuse of power against all public servants, including the chief minister, state ministers, and MLAs.
The agency comprised a Lokayukta — either a retired Supreme Court judge or the chief justice of a high court — and two Upa-Lokayuktas — either retired or serving high court judges.
The governor appointed them on the advice of the chief minister, would have already consulted the Assembly Speaker and the Leader of the Opposition.
As per the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act of 1999, orders issued by the Lokayukta or the Upa-Lokayukta after an investigation were binding on the government and the competent authorities, including the governor, chief minister and Cabinet members.
May 17, 2024
May 16, 2024
May 16, 2024
May 16, 2024
May 16, 2024
May 16, 2024
