Rakesh Bhatnagar: Institutional integrity not for judges alone

The significance of ‘institutional integrity’, which has been emphasised to strengthen the watchdog constitutional bodies, needs to be appreciated by the men who select persons to man such public-spirited anti- corruption organisation, including the proposed Lokpal.

It was in 1993 when the power to select judges had been  taken away by the judiciary as it was largely felt the political choice could contaminate the entire dispensation system in which the government and its agencies are the biggest litigants.

Whether the judicial prerogative exercised by top judges, called the ‘collegium’, has served the purpose for which it was evolved is a million dollar question. However, the fact remains that a body which is set up to judge the actions or decisions of the government must not be under the influence of the same litigant.

Thus, propriety demands and the constitutional mandate requires that for free and impartial decision making, it’s important to instill independence in a constitutional authority.

This fact is evident from the Supreme Court’s verdict that overturned  the Union government’s order appointing PJ Thomas as the chief vigilance commissioner. What agitated the court was whether a person who was under the cloud of suspicion in a corruption case could be given the charge to head the national watchdog against corruption.

Chief Justice of India SH Kapadia, who headed the bench that scrapped Thomas’ appointment, expressed the anguish at the Union government’s apathy towards the integrity aspect of an important institution. That the Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion is not meant for judges alone, it’s as much required for political governance and agencies set up under the Constitution. If a public servant is placed under suspension after a charge sheet is filed against him in a criminal case, why can’t the lawmakers wait outside the domain of law making until the apex court takes a final decision on their fate.

Though MPs and MLAs have been given the status of ‘public servants’, they are seldom treated like any other government functionary. They continue to enact law and are expected to make significant contribution in drafting the enactments that could have far-reaching effects on the polity. What is far more crucial at this stage is should the people in power who would be under the scanner of the proposed Lokpal and Lok Ayuktas be kept away from the appointment process. There’s no doubt that insulating the two institutions from the political executive could help in restoring the people’s confidence in the government’s endeavour to enact an effective Ombudsman law. At the same time it would be interesting to observe the rare proceedings that the Gujarat High Court is seized of concerning the governor bypassing the chief minister in the appointment of the state Lok Ayukta.