Dr Moa Jamir
When Nagaland Lokayukta Act 2017 came into force, it was seen as a crucial step towards engendering transparency and accountability in the system of governance in the State. The swearing-in of a former Judge of a High Court, as mandated by the Act, as the first Lokayukta of Nagaland on February 22, 2019 further cemented such lofty notions.
As per the Nagaland Lokayukta’s ‘First Annual Report 2019-20,’ from February 2019- February 2020, a total of 8 cases were either ‘closed/disposed’ off by its Judicial Wing. The ‘status of pending cases at present’ indicated that out of this 1 was ‘Disciplinary Proceedings Cases (TRK) and 7 were regular cases.
In addition, its Technical Branch had taken up and submitted reports on 13 cases during the period - January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019. The gist of finalised cases on its website informed that between February 2019 and August 2019, a total of 6 ‘Subject matter’ were concluded and relevant actions were taken.
‘The ongoing cases under investigation cannot be uploaded to maintain confidentiality so that the cases can be discretely proved/ investigated,’ a disclaimer on the website read. From time to time, preliminary enquiries, at times political in nature, are taken up apart from ongoing cases.
However, things have unfolded and concluded in a rather unusual manner when the Nagaland Government asked for the removal of the Nagaland Lokayukta in a Writ Petition (Civil) first heard in the Supreme Court of India on August 21, 2020, alleging among others, “acts of impropriety.’
The hearing of the case gained momentum in January 2021and concluded in the apex court on February 1. According to a PTI news agency report of the proceedings, the State Government, in its plea, had urged the apex court to pass appropriate direction in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure that the ‘institutional integrity” of the post of Nagaland Lokayukta and the spirit of the Nagaland Lokayukta Act, 2017” are “preserved.”
The Supreme Court accepted the resignation of Nagaland Lokayukta as the head of the ombudsman subject to certain conditions on February 1. Accordingly, the ‘Term of Office’ of the first Nagaland Lokayukta is given as ‘22nd Feb 2019-5th Feb 2021’ on its website.
There is no reason to question the sagacity of the Supreme Court in bringing the matter to a logical conclusion after dispositions from both sides, but the bigger question is the State Government’s next step.
The appointment of the Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta section of the Nagaland Lokayukta Act, 2017 (Act 1 of 2018) provided that the former “shall be appointed by the State Government after consultation with the Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court, the Speaker and Leader of Opposition failing which the Leader of the single largest party of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly.”
Besides, a vacancy occurring in the “office of the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta by reason of his/her death, resignation, retirement or removal shall be filled in as soon as possible but not later than six months from the date of occurrence of such vacancy.”
The State Government has cited preservation of ‘institutional integrity” as a reason seeking the removal of the previous incumbent. It is also true that within a short period, the office of the Nagaland Lokayukta has brought about a semblance of an ample ombudsman for accountability in the state.
Conversely, to preserve the ‘institutional integrity,’ it is also imperative that the State Government appoints a new Lokayukta without delay. The ongoing Assembly Session is an opportune moment to undertake such a step.
For any comment, drop a line to jamir.moa@gmail.com
