Moa Jamir
The delay in the appointment of a new Lokayukta in the State has raised a significant and concerning question: Is the Nagaland Government wary of Lokayukta? This is a valid concern for two reasons.
The first is the chain of events that resulted in the first Nagaland Lokayukta leaving the office ‘prematurely’ after an unprecedented legal tussle and the matter being ‘adjudicated’ in the Supreme Court of India. As per the Nagaland Lokayukta’s website, Justice Uma Nath Singh served for just around two years from February 22, 2019-February 5, 2021.
As per the Nagaland Lokayukta Act, every person appointed as the “Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office or until he attains the age 'of 70 years, whichever is earlier: (sic).” The UPA- Lokayukta is now acting as the Lokayukta –in-charge since February 25, 2021.
The second is the delay in appointing a new Nagaland Lokayukta even after 1 year and 8 months since the previous incumbent vacated the office. The intervening period has witnessed action by the State Government, which at best, can be construed as ‘delaying tactics.’ The same had been regularly highlighted by this newspaper before.
To recollect, the Act provided that any vacancy occurring in the office of the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta “shall be filled in as soon as possible, but not later than six months from the date of occurrence of such vacancy.” However, a two-member search committee was constituted only on July 29, 2021, just 7 days before the lapse of the six-month deadline stipulated in the Act.
The Government had another plan in mind though, with the introduction of the Nagaland Lokayukta Act (Amendment) No. 2 Bill, 2021 on August 3, 2021, in the State Assembly, two days before the ‘six-month’ provision would have lapsed.
The Bill proposed to extend the period for filling up of vacancy in the office of Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta from ‘six months to ‘one year’; ergo, the government gave itself a reprieve from the previous provision.
Reportedly, the then Governor returned the Bill passed by the State Assembly for ‘reconsideration.’ Undeterred, it was passed by the State Assembly on November 26, 2021. In March this year, the House was informed that the Amendment Bill had received the assent of the Governor of Nagaland, thus becoming a law.
However, apart from the extension of the vacancy period, the Amendment Bill (Act) had some significant departures from the previous Act.
Under the previous provision, only a judge of the Supreme Court or the Chief Justice of a High Court or a judge of the High Court can be appointed as Lokayukta; however, the amendment added: “...A person qualified to be appointed as a High Court Judge or a person who has vast knowledge of law and experience in judicial matters or courts or a person of impeccable integrity, outstanding ability having special knowledge and expertise of not less than twenty years in the matters relating to anti-corruption policy, public administration, vigilance, finance including insurance and banking, law and management.”
Likewise, the tenure of 5 years for Lokayukta was substituted 3, which “may be extended beyond three years by two more years on mutual agreement between the Lokayukta and the State government,” basically, providing that the former will hold office at the pleasure of the latter, in reality.
Recently, two organisations questioned the State Government on the issue and demanded the appointment of the Lokayukta at the earliest. The Nagaland Voluntary Consumers’ Organisation (NVCO), on September 25, accused the State’s highest and most powerful institute – ‘Lokayukta’ of continuously functioning in total violation of the Nagaland Lokayukta Act, 2017.
Likewise, the Against Corruption and Unabated Taxation (ACAUT) charged the State Government of intending to keep the Lokayukta as a “decorative piece without any power and functions and termed it as the ‘worst-case scenario’ in a democracy, while demanding appointment of the rightful Lokayukta at the earliest.
The State Government should heed such demands. Else, its actions, from the events leading up to the resignation of the previous incumbent to the present day, can be taken as a case of the State Government being wary of the anti-corruption watchdog. If so, it is indeed a ‘worst-case scenario’ for a democracy in general, and for the citizens of Nagaland, in particular.
For any comments, drop a line to jamir.moa@gmail.com
