Bad legislation cripples Goa's anti-corruption commission

Sandesh Prabhudesai in Panaji

Besides Kerala and Himachal Pradesh, Goa is the only state which is to soon have a commission to nail down corruption among people living a public life. The commission would have powers to question even the chief minister and yet poor legislation has robbed it of bite.

The Public Men's Corruption (Investigations and Inquiries) Act was passed in 1988 but several loopholes in the legislation have reduced the commission to an organisation which can only recommend action against corruption, incapable of taking on corrupt people directly.

The commission is headed by retired high court judge Justice Gustav Philip Couto. The other members are state lawyers Charles Fereira Alvares and GU Bhobe. They were administered the oath of office by a high court judge on January 28, the 58^th birthday of Chief Minister Pratapsing Rane.

The Public Men's Corruption (Investigations and Inquiries) Act, however, allows the commission to question the integrity of no only senior officials controlling government and semi-government organisations, but also chief minister, ministers, MLAs, chairpersons of municipalities and panchayats, corporations, authorities, boards, cooperative societies, office bearers of political parties and trade unions and even authorities controlling universities and government-aided educational institutions.

Justice Couto, who is planning to start the commission's work within two months, admits he has no powers to act against those proved guilty of corruption. "They have to resign immediately once the charges are proved. But taking action is up to the government," he explains.

The Act has also made it mandatory for all public persons to declare their assets every two years, but the commission has no authority to penalise them if they don't.

On the other hand, rules stipulating the authority before which the public persons have to file their assets have not yet been drawn.

While Justice Couto is still unclear about the issue but Rane claims it would be done six months before the statement of assets have to be filed.

The competent authorities, before whom the assets have to be declared, have been categorised only for government officials. They are either ministers or the senior bureaucrats.

Faced by a barrage of questions as to why the commission has no powers to take action against the corrupt, Rane was elusive and instead of an answer asked the journalists to point out shortcomings so that the act could be amended at later. "Let it take shape," he said, conceding that all they had done was blindly copy the Kerala legislation.

A complaint can be filed before the commission by depositing Rs 500. But if the complaint, after investigations, is found to be false or vexatious, the complainant would have to pay a compensation of not less than Rs 25,000 says the Act. It also states that no person shall be compelled to give evidence.

Though the Act also allows one to file a complaint against persons who have had held public office in the past, it bars any complaint after five years of the offence. Similarly, the act prohibits the complainant to challenge the commission's order or to file a similar complaint in any other court of the country.

The government has allocated only Rs 1.2 million for its annual budget, of which over Rs 1 million is expected to be spent over the salaries of commission members and the staff. Rane now claims that he will increase the allocation in March while presenting an annual budget.