Jaleel, who was a minister in the first Pinarayi Vijayan Cabinet, had to resign following an adverse Lok Ayukta judgment. When he was a High Court judge, the current Lok Ayukta, Jaleel alleged, had helped a senior United Democratic Front (UDF) leader in a controversial case in return for the favour of securing a plum post for his brother’s wife. Incidentally, Jaleel has made the allegations in a Facebook post without naming the Lok Ayukta.

Jaleel has also uploaded a copy of the verdict by a High Court bench, in which Cyriac Joseph was a member, which closed further investigation into infamous ice cream parlour case in which Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) leader P K Kunhalikutty was an accused. He also claimed that the appointment of Cyriac Joseph’s sister-in-law Jancy James as vice-chancellor of Mahatma Gandhi University was linked to that case.

The timing of Jaleel’s angry outburst against the Lok Ayukta is significant. It has come two days before the Lok Ayukta is set to hear a case against Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and another case against Higher Education Minister R Bindu. The Opposition has alleged that the ordinance against the Lok Ayukta, which reduces to a minor advisory rule, was aimed at protecting the CM and the Minister from any possible adverse ruling by the Lok Ayukta.

Not surprisingly, the Opposition has grabbed the opportunity to grill the Government and the Chief Minister. Leader of the Opposition fired the first salvo. Jaleel’s flare-up against the Lok Ayukta, Satheesan said, stemmed from the fear in the CPI(M) camp that the Lok Ayukta might come up with a declaration of guilt in the cases against Pinarayi and Bindu. Satheesan further said that the CPI(M) had realized that a declaration under Article 14 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta would be binding on the competent authority, the Governor, in the case of the Chief Minister, to oust the ‘guilty’ official from public office. Moreover, the ruling Under Section 14 does not have the provision for appeal against the verdict.

The CPI(M), on its part, has stoutly defended the ordinance. The crux of the party’s argument is that an ombudsman’s ruling cannot be allowed to unseat an elected Government on the basis of an individual complaint. The CPI(M) also voiced its fear that it could allow the Centre to interfere in the State’s affairs. That explained the urgency of the Ordinance. Section 14 goes against the Constitution and therefore, has to be amended. That is the argument of CPI(M) leaders.

The BJP has also ‘joined hands’ with the Congress-led UDF to accuse the LDF government of trying to render the Lok Ayukta ineffective with the objective of diverting attention from what the party called entrenched corruption in the government.

The CPI(M) leaders rebut the opposition criticism saying that the Lok Ayuktas in other states do not enjoy the kind of powers it does as per the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act. The Lok Ayuktas in Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat and Congress-ruled states like Rajasthan and Punjab, for instance, do not have the power to penalize elected leaders This being the ground reality, the Kerala Lok Ayukta cannot be given an exemption to this general ‘rule’.

The ball is now in the Governor’s court as the ordinance is awaiting his clearance. The Governor seems to be adopting a cautionary attitude in view of the Opposition’s request that he should not sign the ordinance in a hurry. Reports have it that the Governor has sought legal advice in the matter.

The Communist Party of India (CPI) has voiced its displeasure about the manner in which the ordinance has been passed. CPI state secretary Kanam Rajendran is on record that it would have been better if the issue had been discussed in the assembly and the LDF coordination committee meeting. That would have given members, Kanam said, an opportunity to air their views on the sensitive matter. Efforts are on to sort out the differences between the CPI(M) and CPI on the matter. (IPA Service)