The Supreme Court’s anxiety over delays in setting up the Lokpal, or anti-corruption watchdog, who can take up graft even if at the highest level of government, is understandable. The concept of a powerful ombudsman has been talked about for over five decades, and no one will argue against the need for this in a nation that has seen signs of corruption at the highest levels. The bill to appoint a Lokpal was passed in 2013, and is stuck at the second stage — over how to fill the slot for the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament as the Congress, with 44 Lok Sabha MPs, doesn’t qualify. However, the court’s suggestion that the process go forward in the absence of a Leader of the Opposition appears seriously flawed.
The ombudsman ideal won’t be well served if those who choose a person for such a significant post don’t take into account the Opposition’s inputs. Even if someone has impeccable credentials for serving as ombudsman, he/she would neither be the consensus candidate nor the ideal one if the search panel is not inclusive. The fear that the institution would be beholden to those in power will be inescapable if the Opposition doesn’t have the option of the choice. India’s hasn’t had an ombudsman for 70 years, and a delay in getting the leader of the largest Opposition party on the search panel won’t bring the nation down. The judiciary may be keen to get the institution into place, but the shortcut it offers negates the principle of a neutral and fearless watchdog.
