The Kerala government’s proposal to amend its Lok Ayukta Act through an ordinance appears questionable and hasty.
What is Lokayukta?
The Lok Ayuktas are the state equivalents of the central Lokpal that deal with complaints on corruption against certain public functionaries in the states.
The first state in India to establish Lok Ayukta was Maharashtra in 1971.
The first state in India to pass Lok Ayukta act was Odisha in 1970.
Functions
Investigating grievances of the citizens caused by maladministration.
Inquiry into allegations of abuse of office, corruption, or lack of integrity against public servants.
Keep a check on the investigation of anti-corruption agencies and authorities.
What is the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 about?
At present Lok Ayukta has the power to remove a public servant if it finds malpractices or corruption.
It can issue an order in this regard by submitting to the concerned authority (Governor, CM, State government) under which the respective individual comes.
The notion is that the authority should approve it.
What is the proposed ordinance about?
The amendments give authority to the government to reject or approve Lok Ayukta verdict.
It has turned the quasi-judicial institution into a toothless advisory body, whose orders will no longer be binding on the government.
As per the ordinance, the authority concerned has to take a decision on the verdict within three months. Or else it will be considered approved.
It also seeks to provide for an appeal.
What are the oppositions against the proposed ordinance?
There are allegations that the Lok Ayukta has been targeted by the government as there are many cases before it which may put the administration in badlight.
It is important to note that during the last government’s tenure, Minister KT Jaleel had to resign due to Lok Ayukta’s verdict, which was a major blow to the administration.
The adoption of the ordinance route to amend the act has raised questions.
What is the government’s stand?
Violation of Articles 163 and 164- The Government has defended the proposed ordinance on the ground that the act pave way for removal of a Minister duly appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister, and violates Articles 163 and 164 of the Constitution.
No appeal- There is no provision for appeal in the current act.
