Corruption at the helm, not my kind of Ayukta: Justice Santosh Hegde

 

Before 1984, corruption cases against government officials would go to the Anti-Corruption Bureau and anything related to grievances would go to the Grievances Redressal Cell. The Lokayukta Act has given both tasks to the Lokayukta and I feel Karnataka Lokayukta Act is one of the best and comprehensive legislations to deal with the present challenge of corruption and maladministration. 

 

In the 60s, the central government found that corruption and maladministration are the main hurdles to governance. The second Administrative Reforms Commission that went through various models in other countries suggested that the one in Scandinavia was best suited for the country. 

 

The ARC recommended the creation of Lokpal at national level and Lokayuktas for states. So, in Karnataka, when the assembly election was fought in 1983, the Janata Party had promised people that if voted to power, it would bring a Lokayukta Act. Late Ramakrishna Hegde knew about the ARC report. After the party came to power, he took the lead to bring the legislation. In 1986, it became a reality. 

 

 

It has two tasks. One is fighting corruption. It is done by the Lokayukta police. The judge who occupies the Lokayukta chair has no power to interfere. Grievance redressal is another service that the Lokayukta does. One who sits in this seat can help people by attending to their grievances. Whosoever has a complaint, can come to Lokayukta. And if their claims are genuine, they will get relief. 

 

Therefore, the Lokayukta has two tasks: investigate the misdeeds of officers in the government, look into the sufferings of people and get them justice.

 

 

I have no interests nor do I expect any post. My conscience is very clear. I had named three chief ministers, one each from JD(S), Congress and BJP in my report on mining. I followed the rules. 

 

 

I can say with certainty that not a single complaint, orally or in writing was given to me by anyone against any officer in the Lokayukta. There were no charges of corruption nor any complaint of any clique operating within. There were complaints against lower level police officers. They were dealt with immediately by sending the officers back to their parent department. I had an efficient officer ADGP, R.K. Datta. He used to manage the police force. On his advice some police officers were sent back. A particular officer who is PRO now was there in Lokayukta. But, I did not receive a single complaint against him. But now I hear of his involvement in corruption cases. 

 

Naturally, as PRO, he comes in contact with people who approach the institution. It is possible because of temptation. When people at the helm sit in their official chamber and indulge in corruption, it is quite natural that others and lower rung officers get emboldened to do it.

 

 

Even before the case could reach a logical end, my officer (R.K. Datta) was transferred. His successor, who is also an ADGP rank officer, said after some time there was no case. So, it was dismissed. We had an option to challenge it. But, we did not. He (Mr Nimbalkar) filed a defamation case against me which was later dismissed by the Supreme Court.

 

Though no one can raise a finger about your credibility,  one can challenge you saying you took wrong decisions on the raids

I had nothing to do with raids. I would enter the scene to brief the media on the list of raided officials. 

My officers would tell me that since the officers raided were their colleagues, they could not  brief the media. So, I would do the briefing. 

I never said you go and raid this officer nor did I ever recommend not to raid someone. Mr Datta was not an officer who would succumb to anything or manoeuvre things.

 

 

(Sounding irritated) There was no opportunity to be biased or to talk ill against him. Now, I am biased against him because of the material that is coming out against him. I have nothing to hide. I had no contact with him in the past. When he was the CJ here I was in the Supreme Court. I did meet him once when he invited me for dinner. I met him during my visits to Lokayukta office but those were purely official. What is he going to expose me for? 

 

I don’t have interest in money. To share some information, one organisation gave me Rs 1 crore which I donated to the Armed Forces Welfare Fund. Then Nani Palkhivala Foundation gave me an award along with Rs 2.5 lakh which I gave it to the children’s wing of Tata Memorial Cancer hospital. So, my conscience is clear. But what about this gentleman? The rumour is that he paid money and came to this post.

 

 

I have reacted to this earlier. It is a ridiculous decision. Three tahsildars were indicted on corruption charges. They (the cabinet) give an excuse that when so many officers were corrupt, why only target three? If you catch a murderer tomorrow he may plead that so many murders are happening around, why only target me? What a shameless thing.

 

 

Do not take away the grievance redressal job from Lokayukta. Give them the power to prosecute. The Lokayukta has no role now to oversee or investigate cases registered under Prevention of Corruption Act. The Lokayukta should have a role.