By Moa Jamir
The chequered relationship between the Nagaland State Government and the Lokayukta has once put into spotlight following an interim order by the Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench. The court has stayed two amendments to the Nagaland Lokayukta Act, 2017, raising fresh questions about the institution's independence and the government’s commitment to transparency.
The Lokayukta, established under the Nagaland Lokayukta Act, 2017, serves as an anti-corruption ombudsman to investigate corruption and maladministration by public servants. However, its functioning has been fraught with challenges, from legislative amendments to prolonged vacancies in key positions.
The recent court order stayed the First Amendment Act, 2019, and the Second Amendment Act, 2022, both of which introduced significant changes to the Act. These amendments included modifications to appointment procedures, eligibility criteria, and terms of office, while also expanding the state government’s power to make rules.
The institution’s difficulties began early, with the first Lokayukta leaving office prematurely in February 2021 after a tumultuous tenure that ended following a legal battle adjudicated by the Supreme Court. Since then, legislative changes and administrative delays have raised concerns about the government’s intentions.
For instance, the position of Lokayukta remained vacant for nearly two years, with its duties handled by the Upa-Lokayukta.
While a successor was appointed in December 2022, the delay violated the original Act’s stipulation that such vacancies must be filled within six months. The government’s decision to form a search committee before in July 2021 just the six-month deadline and introduction of amendment the Act in August, extending the vacancy period to one year suggests a deliberate effort to bypass existing safeguards.
The amendments in question appear to go beyond administrative adjustments. The 2022 amendment, for example, reduced the Lokayukta’s term from five to three years, with a provision for a two-year extension through mutual agreement with the state government. Additionally, the scope for holding sittings outside Nagaland was curtailed, and the state government’s power to make rules was enhanced, removing the original requirement for consultation with the Lokayukta. These changes have been interpreted by some as an erosion of the institution’s autonomy, potentially undermining its role as an impartial anti-corruption watchdog.
Another contentious issue lies in the amended eligibility criteria for appointing the Lokayukta. The original Act restricted the role to those who had held high judicial office, such as a judge of the Supreme Court or Chief Justice of a High Court. The amendments, however, expanded this to include individuals with experience in anti-corruption policy, public administration, or related fields. While this broadens the pool of eligible candidates, it also risks diluting the institution’s independence, as non-judicial appointees may lack the same level of impartiality or authority. The removal procedures of Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta appear to be a dilution from the original Act.
Further, the Upa-Lokayukta, who managed the Lokayukta’s duties during the prolonged vacancy, had contested the 2018 State Assembly elections as a candidate for the ruling coalition. Similarly, the new Lokayukta had perceived closeness to the same political bloc. While the personal integrity of these individuals is not questioned, such affiliations raise valid concerns about the government’s commitment to maintaining the institution’s neutrality.
The Gauhati High Court’s intervention is a significant development. However, the broader issue remains: ensuring that the institution operates free from political, bureaucratic, or technocratic influences. The Lokayukta was created to act as a check on government excesses and safeguard public accountability and the Nagaland State Government must reevaluate its approach. While the matter remains sub judice, the need to strengthen institutions of accountability is clear.
For any feedback, drop a line to jamir.moa@gmail.com
