Short of a decade after Anna Hazare led Anti Corruption Movement took the nation by storm from Jantar Mantar, the Lokpal is a reality in the country. As soon as the agitation had begun gathering momentum, the then UPA government led by Man Mohan Singh brought in a Bill in 2011 that was derided by the activists as Jokepal. They came up with a draft bill touted as Jan Lokpal. After some stalemate the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 became a reality in 2014. To be precise it became effective from 16 Jan 2014. But the appointment of the first Chairman and members of the Lokpal took another five years.

1. LOKPAL- ANOTHER REHAB HOME FOR RETIRED JUDGES AND BUREAUCRATS
P M Ravindran, raviforjustice@gmail.com
Short of a decade after Anna Hazare led Anti Corruption Movement took the nation by
storm from Jantar Mantar, the Lokpal is a reality in the country. As soon as the agitation had
begun gathering momentum, the then UPA government led by Man Mohan Singh brought
in a Bill in 2011 that was derided by the activists as Jokepal. They came up with a draft bill
touted as Jan Lokpal. After some stalemate the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 became a
reality in 2014. To be precise it became effective from 16 Jan 2014. But the appointment of
the first Chairman and members of the Lokpal took another five years.
As expected it is a body of retired judges and bureaucrats. To be precise, a judiciary-headed,
judiciary-heavy quasi judicial organization. The Chairman is a retired judge of the Supreme
Court, PC Ghose. In fact he has sidestepped from the National Human Rights Commission
where he had been a member only. The other four judicial members are: former Allahabad
High Court Chief Justice Dilip Babasaheb Bhosale, former Jharkhand High Court Chief Justice
Pradip Kumar Mohanty, former Manipur High Court Chief Justice Abhilasha Kumari and
current Chief Justice of Chhattisgarh High Court Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi. The non judicial
members have been divided among the bureaucrats with the members of the IAS, as usual,
taking extra advantage over the others. The four bureaucrats favored with the new sinecure
are: Maharashtra Chief Secretary Dinesh Kumar Jain (IAS), retired IPS officer and ex-DG of
Sashastra Seema Bal Archana Ramasundaram, retired IRS official Mahender Singh and
retired IAS officer I P Gautam, who is currently the full time managing director of Gujarat
Metro Rail Corporation (GMRC) Limited.
This much is bare data. Now the issues that knowledgeable citizens should confront.
RC Iyer has made some arguments in an article, ‘Lokpal: The institution is useful but its
design is not thought through’, in the Indian Express of 25 Mar 2019
(https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/lokpal-pinaki-chandra-ghose-supreme-
court-corruption-5640705/)
The aim here is to highlight certain other factors.
A Supreme Court bench of P. Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan, in State Of Orissa & Anr. Vs.
Mamata Mohanty, on 9 February, 2011, had made the following observation:
19. Therefore, it is a settled legal proposition that no person can be appointed even
on a temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible
candidates. If any appointment is made by merely inviting names from the
Employment Exchange or putting a note on the Notice Board etc. that will not meet
the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such a course violates the
mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it deprives the
candidates who are eligible for the post, from being considered. A person employed
in violation of these provisions is not entitled to any relief including salary. For a valid
and legal appointment mandatory compliance of the said Constitutional requirement
is to be fulfilled. The equality clause enshrined in Article 16 requires that every such
appointment be made by an open advertisement as to enable all eligible persons to
compete on merit.

2. Now, here is the provision of the Search Committee (Constitution, Terms and Conditions of
appointment of members and the manner of selection of Panel of Names for appointment
of Chairperson and Members of Lokpal) Rules, 2014 on preparation of the panel:
10. Preparation of panel of names by Search Committee. —
(1) The Search Committee shall prepare a panel of persons to be considered by
the Selection Committee for appointment as the Chairperson and Members of
the Lokpal, from amongst the list of persons provided by the Central
Government in the Department of Personnel and Training.
(2) The Central Government shall for the purposes of sub-rule (1),-
(i) circulate the vacancies to the Registrar of the Supreme Court and Registrars of
High Courts, Chief Secretaries of the State Governments and Secretaries in the
Departments and Ministries of the Central Government calling for nomination of
eligible candidates; and
(ii) advertise the vacancies to directly invite applications from the eligible
candidates:
Provided that in case of applicants applying directly, the applicants shall
furnish a letter of recommendation from one eminent person who is or has
been associated with vigilance or dealing with anticorruption issues.
Does the list of appointees indicate that anybody from eligible candidates as mentioned in
para 10(2)(ii) had been considered? Or is it that none of them could compete with the
bureaucrats? The same lot who have reduced government administration to a synonym for
corruption and treason over the years?
Also, Sec 2(b) of the Act mandates that (The Lokpal shall consist of) such number of
Members, not exceeding eight out of whom fifty per cent shall be Judicial Members:
Provided that not less than fifty per cent of the Members of the Lokpal shall be from
amongst the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, Other
Backward Classes, Minorities and women.
Though, personally, I am against such reservation, in any form, anywhere, given the
mandate of the current law, I doubt if the provisions of Sec 2(b) has been complied with.
Going further, Article 124 (7) of the Constitution of India states that: "No person who has
held office as a Judge of the Supreme Court shall plead or act in any court or before any
authority within the territory of India."
Now I do not know any other meaning attached to the word act in the above article, other
than the straight forward one. To my mind, given the context, act includes being the
chairperson or member of a quasi judicial organisation. Anyhow, I sought to clear my
doubts from the horse‘s mouth itself by filing an application under the RTI Act addressed to
the Public Information Officer of the Supreme Court on 23 Feb 2017.
The information sought, regarding Art 124, 216 and 220 of the Constitution*, were:
1.1. Any amendments made to the above articles where by judges other than the CJI
and Chief Justices of High Courts are permitted to use the honourific Justice before
their names, during their service and after retirement.
1.2. Any amendments to the above articles whereby retired judges of the apex court
and high courts are permitted to be appointed to various bodies like National

3. Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs)
and other bodies.
1.3. Article 124 (7) of the Constitution of India states that: "No person who has held
office as a Judge of the Supreme Court shall plead or act in any court or before any
authority within the territory of India." How is the sanctity/spirit of this article
maintained by, say, the Chairman of the NHRC when his
orders/directions/decisions are liable to be questioned in the apex court or say,
account for his decisions/actions to the Prime Minister or any other minister.
2. What are the perks provided to retired judges of the apex court, specifically in terms
of secretarial and security services and personal assistants?
3. Has the apex court complied with Sec 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act? If the information has
been published on the web site then its URL should be provided.
The reply, dated 10 Mar 2017, from the Public Informatio Officer, stated as follows:
Point No. 1(1.1, 1.2., 1.3) : It is beyond the jurisdiction and scope of the duties of the
CPIO, Supreme Court of India under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to interpret
the Iaw, judgments/orders of this Hon'ble Court or of any other Court, to give
explanation, opine, comment or advise on matters. Your request is not covered
under Section 2 (f) of the Right to Information Act, 2O05
Point No. 2: You may, if so advised, refer to 'Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and
Conditions of Service) Act, 1958 as amended from time to time which is already in
public domain and available at the website of Department of justice i.e
www.doj.gov.in.
Point No. 3: Yes. You may if so advised refer to the Supreme Court website viz.
www.sci.nic.in at the link 'Right to Information Act' at the Home Page for the desired
information.
Needless to say, the reply was absurd. It is obvious that no explanation, opinion, comment
or advise had been sought, except may be in para 1.3. Also the Public Information Officer is
mandated to provide the information sought as such and not references where it can be
accessed. (Just to get the record straight, even on 30 Mar 2019, on searching for ‘'Supreme
Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1958’ at http://www.doj.gov.in/ only
an error message was returned.)
Since this is not an effort to evaluate the performance of the judiciary as such, let me get
back to the issue of quasi judicial organizations being rehab homes for retired judges and
bureaucrats. Here I will just ask one question for now. Why should we have so many quasi
judicial organizations and all of them constituting of retired judges and bureaucrats? One of
the apparently logical arguments is that they are constituted to deal with specific matters in
a simple and time bound manner. Unfortunately, the reality speaks otherwise. I shall just
narrate two examples, one from the Palakkad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
and another from the Kerala State Informatio. Commission.
In OP 282/99 (OP No 85/95 transferred from Malappuram), the opposite party had
produced interim stay order on 28/10/99 and the stay was vacated only on 8/6/2005 but
throughout this period the case was listed 58 times and adjourned! It was finally posted for
orders on 6/7/07 but was opened for re-hearing suo moto on 15/2/08 and went on an
adjournment spree from 3/3/08 to 31/5/2010. During this spree it was adjourned 17 times,
including 5 times for want of members/President and 10 times for orders only! It was
dismissed when an application was submitted under the RTI Act to find out the status!

4. The Consumer Protection Act mandates that a consumer dispute should be resolved within
3 months. In response to a complaint to the Chief Minister during his Public Contact
Program, the President claimed that it was only a guide line. (For more details, please the
complaint at http://raviforjustice.blogspot.in/2011/11/chief-ministers-contact-
program.html)
The Right to Information Act is the most simple, clear and unambiguous of all laws in our
country. The information commissioners, who are the quasi judicial authorities, empowered
to enforce the law and penalize defaulting public information officers have one of the
easiest tasks that can be imagined. Their task is certainly much, much simpler than that of a
munsif in our judiciary though the status, pay and perks are equal to The Chief Election
Commissioner, Election Commissioner and the Chief Secretary to a State Government.
There is no reason that they should not dispose of cases on a first come, first served basis.
But even here they have not only messed up the process but totally subverted the system.
(Please read my blog at http://raviforjustice.blogspot.in/2011/11/chief-ministers-public-
contact-program.html and http://www.slideshare.net/raviforjustice/the-worst-order-by-an-
information-commissioner-under-the-right-to-information-act )
It was after exhausting all the remedies to get the information commissioners to function in
the letter and spirit of the law that I decided to approach the Lokayukta, Kerala with a
complaint against the then Chief Minister, Ommen Chandy, and the Chief Information
Commissioner of the Kerala State Information Commission. The proverbial last straw that
broke the camel’s back was a letter from the General Administration Department of the
Government of Kerala stating that the government could not interfere in the working of the
information commission as it was a constitutional authority. This was in blatant violation of
Sec 27 of the RTI Act which mandated the competent authority to make rules to carry out
the provisions of this Act and to provide for … the procedure to be adopted by the
Information Commission in deciding the appeals under sub-section (10) of section 19; and
hence it was presumed that the matter could be disposed off without any hassles.
And that is where the exposure of the wayward functioning of the Lokayukta began.
From the website of the Lokayukta I learnt that they had been conducting sittings outside
Thiruvananthapuram. Even now it informs us that they conduct sittings at Kottayam,
Ernakulam, Kozhikkode, Thalassery and Kannur. Now all these stations are district
headquarters except Thalassery. (It is pertinent to note here that a former Chairman of the
Kerala State Human Right Commission, Mr Mohan Kumar, a retired judge of the Kerala High
Court, held sittings regularly on the 1st of every Malayalam month at Guruvayur, a pilgrim
center in the Thrissur district). I could also download the format of the application form
from the website. A note in this form stated that the complaint along with supporting
documents have to be sent in quadruplicate plus additional copies @ one per respondent.
This complaint I sent by courier on 17/09/2015. In the covering letter I had also requested
to enable me to attend the hearing when held at Palakkad or through video conferencing. I
had submitted a report of the MRI scan of my spine in support of my inability to move. I had
also cited my inability to leave my aged father alone for more than 2 hour at a stretch.
The next I heard from the Lokayukta office was through a telephone call on 27/09/15. The
caller identifying himself as a public servant of the filing section, asked me to report at their
Thiruvananthpuram office to correct two mistakes. The first one was regarding an
additional original copy required because one of the respondents was the CM. Though a
queer requirement (two originals?), I sent two additional ink signed copies through courier

5. on 05/10/2015. The other was that the list of documents attached was not sufficient and an
index with page numbers was required. I sent sufficient copies of this too on 05/10/2015.
There being no response thereafter a letter was sent to the Lokayukta on 31/03/16. And
that was the end of the sordid saga of seeking justice from the Lokayukta in what I would
term a water tight case.
I would request the readers to visit the official web site of the Kerala Lokayukta,
https://www.lokayuktakerala.gov.in, and verify for themselves the following facts:
one, the formats of the complaint provided in English and Malayalam. While the misleading
information about the number of copies continues in the form, even the formats in both the
languages are not identical. The Malayalam version has an index shown in the beginning,
before the Statement of complaint part. The next is accessibility to judgments and the
information required to be disclosed proactively under Sec 4(1(b) of the RTI Act. While the
websites of the high courts and Supreme Court have facilities for accessing their judgment
by judge’s or petitioner’s or respondent’s name and also the case type and number the
Lokayukta website needs the case number, which is not available to anybody who is not
party to any case. And the information under Sec 4(1)(b)? The only info available is the
contact details of the Public information Officer and the First Appellate Authority.
The only time a couple of reports appeared in the media here about the Lokayukta was
when the then Lokayukta and Upalokayukta had had a spat on some issue. Another report
that appeared in the Mathrubhumi daily of 05/12/2018, was about how the Upalokayukta
was misled by a complainant regarding the art festival and gave a verdict contrary to the
one given by the Lokayukta earlier. The matter was thereafter reported to the police for
investigation.
In the whole business of quasi judicial organizations what I find obnoxious is the blatant
violation of the laws by those very authorities who are tasked to enforce those laws. Also,
equally preposterous is the re-employment of retired judges and bureaucrats to these
offices. This is not only a gross waste of tax payers’ money but also a blatant form of
corruption. Just compare the cost to the exchequer of a munsif and an information
commissioner and the dimension of the waste should become obvious. In one report that
appeared in MSM, 18 of the 20 apex court judges who had retired during a particular
interval of time had been given sinecures. Even the appointment of former CJI P Sathasivam
as Governor of Kerala had invited criticism that it was quid pro quo for helping a political
heavyweight in a case he had decided. The Lokayuktas have the status of Chief Justices of
high courts and Upalokayukta that of a judge of the high court. Lastly is the positive bearing
the merging of these authorities with the judiciary will have on the judge to docket ratio.
03 Apr 2019