Ravi Joshi: The curious case of the Karnataka Lok Ayukta

After 46 days in office, Karnataka Lok Ayukta Justice Shivraj V Patil was felled by a tabloid’s fine piece of investigative journalism, which the Lok Ayukta chose to call a “malicious campaign.”

He also “cautioned” the media against such “malicious campaigns”. The Karnataka media should consider that as a pat on its back. Justice Patil’s defence just does not wash. He began his statement by saying that he neither aspired for nor asked for the position of the Lok Ayukta. Maybe he just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. But that’s what happens when family-owned businesses decide to go public and throw open their books to scrutiny, doesn’t it? Don’t analysts run a fine-tooth comb through every transaction to arrive at the worth of the company?

There were several phrases like “malicious campaign” that Justice Patil used to defend his position. Several phrases come to one’s mind as a counter: “Don’t shoot the messenger”, “Caeser’s wife should be above suspicion” etc, but you get the point, don’t you? 

Justice Patil also used 322 words to defend his wife’s acquisition of a plot in a Bangalore co-operative housing society. What he did not say was that the society (Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society) was under investigation for violations involving Dhavalagiri Properties, owned by former chief minster BS Yeddyurappa’s sons. What he also forgot to mention was the fact that the complaint is pending against the Lok Ayukta.

The impropriety charge — if not illegality charge — against the Lok Ayukta holds good. Co-operative societies, by definition, are meant for people who do not own a plot or a house. They are meant for people “with limited means, pursuing the same cause of meeting the common need of housing” and cannot afford the ones sold by private developers. With a net worth of around Rs1.62 crore (assets close to Rs2.4 crore and liabilities of over Rs78 lakh), one would assume that Justice Patil was quite capable of buying a plot at market rates and not go for cheaper ones offered by co-operative societies, although he already had two properties — he bought a plot of land in 1982 and was allotted a site by the government in 1994; Justice Patil bought a fourth property for Rs44 lakh in September 2009.

But it is his “cautioning the media” phrase that should get journalists excited. For long, the media in Karnataka has been, for want of a better word, laidback. Take, for instance, the case of the Reddys. Instead of asking tough questions, most journalists in Bellary accepted the hospitality — or cowed down by threats — of the mining barons. At one point, this tacit understanding with journalists and the powers that be in Karnataka had encouraged the Reddys to extract as high as 40% of profits from other miners.

The job of a journalist is to ask questions; to prevent the abuse and misuse of power; to ensure that justice is delivered to those who need it most; to give a voice to the people who are never heard. If we are “cautioned” by people caught with their hand in the cookie jar, we must be doing something right.