In a state grappling with a series of corruption allegations against ministers their families, and bureaucrats, the vacuum of the Goa Lokayukta following the retirement of Justice Ambadas Joshi sends out a poor message. The absence of a vigilant Lokayukta, which plays a crucial role in investigating corruption cases, serves as an alarming signal about the government's commitment to combat graft and restore public trust. With more than 15 pending anti-corruption cases, the delay in appointing a successor is not just bureaucratic inertia; it raises doubts over the earnestness of the often-proclaimed vow of zero tolerance towards corruption.
This is not the only time that a void has been created in Lokayukta's post. Almost every new appointment has been delayed to the extent that there was a 3-year delay before Justice Mishra took charge on April 28, 2016. Agreed, there is a procedure to be followed beginning with the Chief Secretary approving shortlist names, but that doesn't justify the delay. The state's political landscape has been rife with corruption accusations, often amplified by a fragmented opposition that has spared no opportunity to accuse leaders and high-ranking officials of graft. A hiatus not only hampers ongoing investigations but also sows discord in public confidence and security. By not appointing a Lokayukta before Justice Joshi’s tenure concluded in December, the administration has shown a very casual approach to governance. This failure makes it seem as if the government is avoiding or delaying the appointment at a time when bolstering public confidence should be paramount.
The Lokayukta's role extends beyond mere investigations; it represents a mechanism for accountability that the public relies on for protection against the rampant corruption that has historically plagued the political fabric. Land-related matters in Goa, a contentious issue, the many instances of unauthorized constructions and the money that flows under the bridge of real estate need to pass the scrutiny of Lokayukta. The absence of an active Lokayukta exacerbates the pressing need for accountability because a vigilant ombudsman could offer resistance against the encroachment of corruption.
Eventually, it's all about an intent to allow scrutiny. Away from the decision on Lokayukta, the government's recent decision to restrict the budget session to just three days is not seen in a good light, especially after an assurance that the March session would be an elaborate one compensating for the business of the House that was lost in the 2-day winter sitting. Among a host of questions, there were answers needed on crucial subjects like jobs-for-cash, a subject that has shaken the State and thrown a cloud of suspicion on the bureaucracy and ministers.
Flip back to the Lokayukta issue, and the Directorate of Vigilance may have scrambled to find a replacement, but the process appears sluggish and lacks urgency. When the Lokayukta Act was amended to allow retired high court judges to take the role, it was seen as a move towards agile governance. Yet, the current impasse shows that mere procedural amendments are not enough; timely execution is key.
For the government to mend public perception and build confidence, it must prioritize the swift appointment of a Lokayukta. The ongoing delay invokes scepticism and paints a picture of complicity with the very corruption it claims to abhor. Goa needs to install a vigilant ombudsman at the earliest so that a vital line of defence against corruption is put in place.
