All aspects of the episode leading up to the resignation of Justice Shivaraj Patil, the new Karnataka Lok Ayukta, within six weeks of taking office highlight the change in recent times in the way public affairs are conducted in the country. As former high court chief justice and Supreme Court judge, he enjoyed public esteem till it was reported that he and his family own more than one property acquired through co-operative house building societies (apparently against rules). In terms of personal culpability, his position appears to be only a little better than that of P J Thomas, the former chief vigilance commissioner who had to quit since he had a criminal case pending against him for many years. The personal integrity of both in the discharge of their public duties is not questioned and in neither case is a matter of conspiracy or political stratagem to unseat the incumbent suspected. Hence the two cases are good generic examples of the current state of affairs and, particularly the latter, can be usefully studied to understand which way the country is headed.
First, the details came out in the open with Justice Patil publicly declaring his wealth and assets on becoming Lok Ayukta. Having to make such declarations is a positive step and should be made compulsory for all senior government officials. In fact, there can be a debate on who a public person is. What about an office bearer of an important national sports association who discharges an obvious public function on behalf of a large section of the public and holds in trust the national interest in a particular field of sport? Or what about an editor who may be privately employed but is obviously an important keeper of the public trust? Second, some enterprising reporters took the information available in the public domain and made a great story out of it, which was clearly a matter of legitimate general interest. This is the right type of investigative journalism, which is good for the system and far different from the phone hacking by Rupert Murdoch’s boys and girls in Britain in pursuit of celebrity trivia.
But this brings us to a grey area. Will increased disclosure and scrutiny lead to an overwhelming sense of caution among public persons when countries and economies often go forward through bold leaders taking decisions in good faith on the basis of inadequate information? The contemporaries of a former revenue secretary say, with tongue firmly planted in cheek, that he went to bed every night with his thumbs wrapped in cloth so that no one could take his thumb impression while he was asleep. A culture of excessive caution, concerned only with staying clear of any kind of rule breaking, is not in the best national interest. But at the present juncture, when the need to do something about corruption and wrongdoing is uppermost in the public mind, a period of overriding caution may become inevitable. Also, as is prevalent in the United States more than other democracies, the past of the holder of a public office is likely to come under increased scrutiny. Over time, such issues, apart from wasting public time, can create a culture that moves to the top the cautious, the circumspect, the lacklustre and the risk-averse and not necessarily the enterprising, nor the best and the brightest. A pity.
