Government’s way or no way
The revelation by Justice (retd) RA Mehta that a whooping Rs 45 crore had been spent by the Gujarat Government for what he called “persistently and tenaciously” approaching the Supreme Court thrice, to challenge his appointment by Governor Kamala Beniwal as Gujarat Lokayukta, comes as a shocker. In his words the money could be compared to the budget of the office of the Lokayukta or even the High Court.
Mehta was appointed as Gujarat Lokayukta on August 25, 2011, but the bitter resistance to his appointment by the Narendra Modi government has left such a bitter taste that three weeks after the Supreme Court dismissed the Gujarat Government’s curative petition, Mehta declined to assume office saying that the controversy had denigrated the office and the appointment had lost all its grace and dignity. Mehta also said that a Lokayukta which is not wanted by the state government would not get all the support and cooperation and his objectivity and credibility would not be accepted by the government and the public functionaries, whom he would have to investigate.
Very strikingly Mehta observes that governments think that those who are not pro-government are necessarily anti-government and they can’t accept that there can be a third category which is ‘neither pro nor anti government’ but independent and neutral. Their mindset is clear, he says ~ their way or no way.
Incidentally, the Gujarat government is not alone on this count. The Centre has also dug its heels in, in wanting to have its way on the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General. In the Supreme Court, it held the view that no selection criteria can be prescribed for making appointment to the office of the CAG in view of Constitutional restrictions. In its counter affidavit to the appointment of retired bureaucrat and former defence secretary Shashi Kant Sharma, the Centre has sought to take cover under Article 148(1) of the Constitution to state that the article does not prescribe any qualifications, experience or procedure for such an appointment. The Centre has further contended that even the CAG Act does not prescribe provisions pertaining to the appointment. It has argued that in view of the views expressed by the framers of the Constitution, the PIL cannot seek to prescribe eligibility criteria for the CAG which were specifically omitted by the Constitution framers.
This is an alarming trend with governments in general. Although they operate within the framework of democracy, they seek to insulate themselves from the public interest, for which only the best candidates should be selected. Instead the sole criteria unstated by the government, but which is easily evident, is that the persons who are appointed for quasi judicial and statutory posts such as those of Lokayukta, CAG and even Information Commissioners should be pliable.
The case of appointment of State Information Commissioner and Chief Information Commissioner in Goa has been hanging fire for a long time. It is a pity that members of the public and ‘information warriors’ had to engage with the government on a sustained basis over the last one year at their own expense to get the government to deliver what is the right of the people under the Right to Information. The Right to Information Act itself was a long drawn affair where activists and the media had to wage a ‘people’s war’ to get the law enacted by Parliament. But after that was accomplished, there are serious road blocks erected by state governments irrespective of party in power, since there is no merit in vouching for the merits of either party.
