The first and foremost motto of the Karnataka Lokayukta having the constitutional ambition inbuilt is to ensure the ‘Right to Life’ for every citizen. When the rights of the citizens are affected due to a variety of maladministration or corruption due to the acts of public servants, citizens are not in a position to approach the courts. Therefore, the Lokayukta institution was established in the state as a watch-and-ward body for relief. To fulfil this, the Lokayukta institution is working in a multi-pronged approach to empower citizens to protect their nation first, property second and finally to lead a dignified life. Expecting speedy justice, citizens approach the Lokayukta institution, says Upalokayukta Justice KN Phaneendra, former Judge of Karnataka High Court, who shares his thoughts and concerns for the citizens with the editors and staff of The New Sunday Express. Excerpts:
What is the jurisdiction of Lokayukta?
There is a lack of awareness among people for what purpose they have to approach Lokayukta or what matters will come under its jurisdiction. Therefore, we are visiting each district in a month and camping there for 3-4 days. We are getting better results because of this. We published the brochures for the first time after the institution was established nearly four decades ago. I did similar work when I was the Director of the Bangalore Mediation Centre. After being appointed as Upalokayukta, I formed a committee of judicial officers, including our Deputy Registrar Channakeshava Reddy MV, which did meticulous work to bring brochures about the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, which deals with maladministration, and the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, which deals with corruption. If one reads the brochure, he/she will easily know what Lokayukta is, its scope, powers, responsibilities and the cases we deal with. The brochure also has information on what types of cases we can’t take up.
What kind of cases do Lokayukta and Upalokayuktas handle, and against whom are there more complaints?
The jurisdiction is watertight. All IAS, IPS and elected representatives come under the Lokayukta jurisdiction. The other public servants below the cadre of IAS and IPS come under Upalokayukta jurisdiction. Grievances against Tahsildars, Assistant Commissioners, Revenue Inspectors, Sub Registrars and RTOs are the highest numbers.
What cases can’t be handled by Lokayukta?
We have no jurisdiction in cases like appealable, review, revision, writ petition or suit. Aggrieved parties have to challenge the judicial orders before the court concerned. For instance, some people come to us to get a partition of their properties. In such cases, we give endorsement to approach the court. In another instance, a woman approached us seeking to get a divorce from her husband. Fifty per cent of cases are like this. Though this gives a good impression that Lokayukta can do anything and everything, it shows a lack of awareness. Many people, who addressed a petition to the President, PM and CM, also marked the same to us. We have to process them, both genuine cases and these are mixed up. There must be an application of mind to segregate them. So those will be allotted to officers for scrutiny. This has become a headache.
How is the institution handling the workload? Can you share the statistics?
There are three posts - one Lokayukta and two Upalokayuktas. The post of second Upalokayukta has been vacant for almost more than 18 months and only one Upalokayukta is handling the work and responsibilities of two Upalokayuktas. Daily, I have to clear around 300 files. There are 1,576 departmental inquiry cases and 18 district judges to deal with those cases. In addition to this, they have to handle the cases of grievances and allegations. The institution is overloaded when compared to the courts. All A, B, C and D staff cadre strength is 1,930 but the working strength is 1,214. The vacant posts are 716. We have requested the state government to fill the vacancies, which is responding positively. Complaints, excluding cases of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as of today, are 18,038, including suo motu cases. Around 5,000 complaints are before Lokayukta and the remaining cases are before Upalokayukta. Miscellaneous cases, which are kept to identify whether they come under our jurisdiction, are 6,291.
Do you think all categories of people are approaching Lokayukta?
In my experience, those who are unable to pay bribes and don’t have influence will approach us. The second category of people are principled who are not willing to pay bribes, who believe that they have the right to get the work done. The third category is people who create trouble by filing false complaints against honest officers for not doing their work illegally.
How has corruption changed over time?
As society develops, and with the increasing value of properties, the quantum of bribes is also increasing. But what we want to be taken into consideration is how they are taken. Earlier, officers directly took the money. Now, it is not possible as they will be caught, sensing that the money-giver will be followed by the Lokayukta police. Therefore, they are collecting through third parties who are not connected with the matter at all. So he is also caught under the PC Act. That apart, proving the case is becoming more difficult day by day. So, therefore, we have to adopt some other methods to combat this. Lokayukta police are giving a camera, and audio recorder to the complainant to record demands. The PC Act says even proof of mere demand is sufficient though one doesn’t receive a bribe. So demand is to be established with reasonable grounds before the court.
You say, the demand is sufficient for proof to try the accused under the PC Act. But, the Karnataka HC quashed the proceedings against former BJP MLA Madal Virupakshappa on the ground that there was no demand and acceptance of a bribe.
With due respect to the High Court, we have decided to file an appeal against the HC judgment before the Supreme Court.
Despite the Lokayukta raids, several officers are observed holding the same positions within the department. What are your thoughts on this?
We are addressing such cases rigorously. In two instances, we have requested the Chief Secretary and the government to avoid reassigning individuals to the same position or location. The suspension order automatically concludes after six months, a statutory regulation that doesn’t require additional approval. However, the practice of placing the same person in the same position should be discontinued as it can influence and intimidate eyewitnesses.
There seems to be a diminishing sense of fear regarding the Lokayukta among the public these days. What could be the reasons for this shift?
It depends on the individual. However, fear is resurfacing and is evident from the increasing number of lodged complaints.
What measures have been implemented to enhance the strength of the Lokayukta?
Certainly, we require infrastructure, staff, and vehicles, especially considering that each inquiry officer manages around 400-500 cases. The government has been approached for these necessities, and there is a positive response. The Chief Secretary has met with the Lokayukta, assuring prompt provision of the required resources. The efficiency of the Lokayukta police wing is in question, as transfers to this division are often perceived as a punishment. The Lokayukta follows specific criteria when selecting officers. The background of police officers undergoes scrutiny upon receiving the transfer list, and those not meeting the Lokayukta’s set criteria are sent back.
Why is it a common perception that there is rampant corruption in the state and only lower-ranking officers are targeted rather than senior officers?
Yes. There is rampant corruption because in almost all cases people are making allegations but the law requires evidence. Also, in every case of grievance, cases cannot be booked under the PC Act. To substantiate allegations against any officer, we require ample evidence. Unfortunately, many people choose to bypass us and instead fulfil their tasks by paying off officers. As long as bribery persists, officers may continue accepting it. Therefore, collectively, we must impart a lesson to those offering bribes.
While Lokayukta and Upalokayukta are actively combating corruption, what role can society and ordinary citizens play?
Promoting a values-based life is crucial for society. It’s essential to refrain from bribery and raise awareness, encouraging people to seek assistance from institutions like Lokayukta. I encountered a situation where a candidate sought help due to a delay in obtaining an OBC certificate from a Tahsildar for applying for a job. Upon intervention, the Tahsildar promptly issued the certificate, even before the complaint was formally lodged. While such assistance can be provided in certain cases, the Upalokayukta’s direct involvement in each case is practically not doable given the workload constraints.
Can citizens approach you directly?
My doors are always open to everyone. People can come and meet me directly in the afternoon. People from far-off places like Bidar come to meet us and we can’t disappoint them. We must give them the confidence that they have all the right to seek justice and that’s enough for them in many cases. But if we don’t entertain them, people will lose hope and get frustrated.
Tell us about your district visits.
Whenever I visit districts, I go to hostels, hospitals and jails. I have visited 12 districts so far where we take personal cases of people. It is a week-long process. As we notify about the visit a week in advance and also issue notices to the concerned, 50 per cent of the cases are solved before we go. Also, we legally assist people and conduct awareness programmes for public servants where we highlight the Lokayukta Act, PC Act, punishment if trapped, departmental inquiry and their responsibilities. The next day, we meet judicial officers and explain the Lokayukta Act and seek their cooperation to help people. After all this, we start our surprise visits to hostels, jails, hospitals, schools and other places. At many hostels, we have noticed a lack of proper toilets, drinking water, beds, and hygiene.
Recently, we visited a boys’ hostel at Koppal, which is not suitable even for animals. I called the DC and CEO and registered a suo motu case, and within a week, the issue was resolved. Many such instances happened in other districts. In jails, too, there are issues including food. We are also liaising with the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority or the District Legal Services Authority. After receiving grievances, we refer eligible people, whose income is below Rs 3 lakh, to Legal Services Authorities for free legal aid. Also, we mark the copies of the grievances to DSLAs who in turn track them, act swiftly, and submit compliance reports too.
Where does Lokayukta stand on conviction rates?
It is about 5-10 per cent and we are taking all measures to achieve maximum conviction by sensitising Lokayukta police officials and prosecutors. The main problem is the nature in which the corruption has taken place. Witnesses have to support the case. In most cases, the complainants turn hostile. Also, lapses in investigation are a reason. Based on the circumstantial evidence, the court can still convict the accused.
What is your take on withdrawing Lokayukta probes after the change of government?
It is a policy decision of the government.
Which one is more satisfying, serving as High Court judge or Upalokayukta?
There (HC) it was confined to four corners of the law and had a restricted life. Here, we are free and can mingle with people. We must be free, or else we cannot work for the benefit of people. This (being Upalokayukta) is good as the results are immediate. As I mentioned, just a phone call to Tahsildar helped the youth get an OBC certificate for a job within a few hours. The boy was in tears and he thanked me. Such instances touch our hearts and are satisfying.