to pin point loop holes and offer suggestions for making the Lokayukta bill more effective in combating rampant corruption that has crept in along these years, specially at all levels of administration. The bill had belied the expectations of the people of the state, as it had turned out to be only a kind of Xerox copy of the 2002 bill, with only a little cosmetic touch, bringing the chief minister of the state under its purview. Chief Minister Mukul Sangma had stated- “Our intention is very clear. We want to have an effective Lokayukta Act, which would address the issues of corruption, in a manner which is befitting to the given circumstances and the emerging changes that we see. The Government would like to ensure that the bill becomes everyone’s property.”

However in reality, it sis not look like the bill would become everyone’s property, as there was no unanimity even at the passing of the bill, as the entire opposition had staged a walk out and also that non-governmental organizations had staged a demonstration and set ablaze to copies of the bill outside the assembly, displaying placards and shouting slogans, devouring the passage of the bill, which really does not ensure, that the legislation would become a weapon against all shades and kinds of corrupt activities existing in the state. Above all, the law makers were not given a chance to discuss the legal aspects and Constitutional implications of the bill, nor was it referred to a select committee of the House, as suggested by the legislators, so as to detect flaws and also so that more inputs could be made to strengthen the legislation to become workable in really serving the interests of the Government and also people of the state.

What is more glaring, is that the bill had mentioned nowhere on the composition of the Lokayukta, which indeed defeated the very purpose of the bill, as to who would be the designated authority in the implementation of the legislation and also in the follow up action of taking action such as prosecution of those found to be involved in corrupt practices. Nothing was mentioned on the composition of the Lokayukta, whether it would be a three member or more, or whether members of the civil society organizations would be included as members. The chief minister had said that either a retired or sitting judge would be a member. The very essence of the bill is still vague as to the composition of the members.

Public representatives whether of parliament or the state assembly would not be eligible for appointment as a Lokayukta member, as those who hold or occupy such public offices would themselves be under the scrutiny of the Lokayukta legislation. The government can also notify exclusion of public servants from the purview and jurisdiction of the Lokayukta. This would amount to the shielding of a public servant who is under the scanner of the Lokayukta, which is unjustified and defeat the very purpose and objective of the bill in the bid to fight against corrupt practices, but at the same time provide ample protection to the defaulters, which goes against the spirit of natural justice.

Though the chief minister of the state would fall under the scanner of the Lokayukta, yet at the same time there are exemptions under its provisions, including the Chief Justice of the High Court, and also the officers and staff, who are supposed to be above the board in the running of the wheels of judicial interests and also member of the Chairman and members of the state judicial service. Another honorable exemption under the purview of the Lokayukta is the Chairman of the Meghalaya Public Service Commission, who is supposed to be the head of the appointment authority of the various jobs and post under the state government, and also to prevent back-door and favoritism appointments. Other exemptions personalities is the Speaker and Deputy speaker of the state legislative assembly, however understandably for their actions pertaining only inside the assembly, as the assembly has its own rules and code of conduct, which take cognizance of any action that is in contempt of the House. The policy formation of the government is also included in the exemption list, in which there would be no say under the Lokayukta, on the policies framed by the government. It is only certainly that certain policies which are regarded of importance had been announced by the government like mining and education. These policies however, can come under public debate in other forums, and would not be under the scanner of the Lokayukta.

However it is not very clear how the grade four and below grade four of the state government are exempted from the purview of the Lokayukta, as these employees also hold a responsibility in handling their duties subjected to the government rules and services, and any violation of these codes of conduct, specially involving in the accepting of bribery and other acts of improper financial implications, should have come into purview of the Lokayukta.

 

Lokayukta bill, however in its approach, seems to be heading to a confrontation with the rights and freedom of expression as enshrined in the Constitution of our country

The Lokayukta bill, however in its approach, seems to be heading to a confrontation with the rights and freedom of expression as enshrined in the Constitution of our country. It is mentioned that spoken and written words to bring disrepute to the Lokayukta members, is liable to a punishment up to six months of imprisonment with fine. The bill has given a protective cover in a glass house to the members of the Lokayukta, in which it was envisaged, that any spoken or written words against the Lokayukta members would be punished up to six months imprisonment and also a fine would be imposed. This particular clause is not only strange but violates the Constitutional freedom of speech and expression. It also tantamount to a direct attempt to gag the media whether print or electronic in exposing the irregularities and actions of the Lokayukta members, as any criticisms would face punishments under the purview of the Lokayukta legislation, which is certainly ridiculous, and defeat the very purpose and intention of the Lokayukta to curb and root out corruption specially in high places. The various non-governmental organizations have therefore voiced their opposition against the bill in its present form and have urged upon the Governor not to give assent to the bill. They have pointed out that in view of the various scams that have plagued the state, not only in the money related affairs, but also in other forms such as favoritism in appointments, food distribution to the below poverty line citizens, it is imperative that the Lokayukta should be suitably armed to bring forth public justice.

Already social and student organizations have taken to the streets in opposing the Lokayukta bill 2012, and have also threatened to intensify the agitations throughout the state, which would add up in the political campaign during the run up to the general elections. It is a clear signal that the matter can be set to rest, only if the government comes up with a string Lokayukta bill, in which corruption offenders cannot circumnavigate and face the consequences of punishment, for the larger interest of a clean government, a clean administration and a clean society.   

Sumar Sing Sawain.