dna edit: Appoint the best

The UPA’s scant disregard for institutions has come in for scrutiny again after senior advocate Fali S Nariman withdrew from the eight-member Lokpal search committee. This committee will forward eligible Lokpal candidates to a selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India’s nominee, an eminent jurist, and the Lok Sabha speaker and leader of opposition. The UPA’s tearing hurry to constitute the eight-member Lokpal comprising four judicial and four non-judicial members before demitting office has been noticed. With the 15th Lok Sabha having met for the last time, the propriety of a lame-duck Lok Sabha speaker and leader of opposition being involved in Lokpal selection comes into question. Ideally, a new prime minister elected through a newly constituted Lok Sabha should have convened a fresh Lok Pal selection committee.

With a five-year term and powers to inquire and prosecute corruption cases, the UPA’s eagerness in appointing Lok Pal members hardly comes as a surprise. Plagued by corruption allegations, the Congress, perhaps, does not feel confident relinquishing this process to an incoming government. Earlier, Sushma Swaraj opposed senior advocate PP Rao’s nomination as jurist on the selection committee, accusing him of bias towards the Congress. Now Nariman has feared that “the most competent, the most independent, and the most courageous will get overlooked” if the two-tier process involving the eight-member search and the five-member selection committees worked on democratic principles of consensus. It is a genuine concern but unless Parliament offers a better process and amends the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act we are bound by this structure.

The country would have been better served, arguably, if Nariman had fought for courageous applicants within the search committee rather than quit. His fear that courageous and competent Lokpals will not emerge is far-fetched too. True, very few bureaucrats and judges appointed to watchdog institutions and regulatory bodies like the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Election Commission, Central Information Commission, Comptroller and Auditor-General and Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) have the stomach to battle ills and initiate reforms. But then, the likes of TN Seshan and Vinod Rai were appointed by political consensus too. However, the Congress’ eagerness to appoint officials riding roughshod over objections and due process is setting a dangerous precedent that other parties are watching but hopefully not imbibing. In recent times, the appointments of PJ Thomas as CVC and KG Balakrishnan as NHRC chief were hotly contested in political and civil society forums.

When the Supreme Court found political appointments impacting judicial independence, it chose a collegium method of judges appointing judges. This was criticised for flouting transparency norms and is now in danger of being reversed. As the Indian republic evolved, the need was felt for regulatory institutions to inquire, oversee and monitor various aspects of governance. Their importance in safeguarding and strengthening our democracy cannot be overstated. It is undeniable that a crisis of credibility affects our judicial, legislative, administrative and regulatory bodies. Their conduct and responses to citizenry have been slow, chaotic, inconsistent and indifferent. In this scenario, making the right appointments becomes important. Around 300 applications for the judicial and non-judicial Lokpal posts are before the search committee. Unlike the past when positions were lobbied for in private, even judges, who found it beneath their dignity to publicly apply for posts, have swallowed their pride. Will the Congress, which stands accused of damaging many an institution, make amends by selecting the best Lokpal candidates?