Lokayukta report on Jaleel: Balan's remarks at variance with CP(I)M's stand on nepotism

New Delhi: The arguments raised by Kerala Law Minister A K Balan on behalf of the state government in connection with the Lokayukta directive on minister KT Jaleel are against the well-stated policies of the CPM on issues like corruption and decisions of the Lokayukta.

The party's central committee is of the view that Balan's statement doesn't reflect the stand of its state unit or was an outcome of a discussion on the matter.

There are inconsistencies in the law minister's arguments regarding the provisions of the Lokayukta Act which provides for an anti-corruption ombudsman. Pointing out that Jaleel has many legal options, Balan had said on Saturday the minister could appeal against the Lokayukta verdict and get it stayed.

"The chief minister has three month's time to act on the report. Those seeking his immediate resignation should realise that there is no such precedence in the state," Balan said suggesting that his colleague need not resign.

The central leadership pointed out that his arguments made in an attempt to defend Jaleel are out of place. Balan had stated that there is no hurdle in the appointment of relatives on deputation and former UDF minister K M Mani had also made such appointments.

The CP(I)M central leadership has clarified that a decision on the Lokayukta report will be taken in a few days. Since the Kerala Chief Minister is under treatment for Covid-19 at the Kozhikode Medical College, there are limitations in taking a decision at this stage.

Party's position

On nepotism, the CP(I)M's stated position is that it is not enough to scrap the appointment and undue benefits granted to the relatives of those in power but a high-level inquiry is required in such matters and the Minister concerned should also resign.

In the CP(I)M document on the Lok Pal bill released on August 25, 2011, the party made it clear that misuse of power for personal benefits should not only be considered nepotism but also corruption.

In July 2011, the Lokayukta unearthed irregularities against the then Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa. The CP(I)M had then demanded the resignation of Yediyurappa. The BJP also decided to remove him from the post of the chief minister.

What the law states?

The Lokayukta had declared that State Minister Jaleel should not continue in office as per Section 14 of the Kerala Lokayukta Act. The provisions state that the chief minister should accept the decision and the minister concerned should resign. In other words, it is the legal responsibility of the chief minister to make the minister resign.

Section 12 of the Act says that the government should inform the Lokayukta about what action it has taken or what action it is going to take within three months. This is important in the backdrop of minister Balan's statement the other day that the government had three months time.

The minister's statement describing the Lokayukta headed by a former Judge of Supreme Court as a lower court is noteworthy.

The Lokayukta Act says that if criminal offences are detected then the order to prosecute the accused could be issued. The offences pointed out by the Lokayukta of Kerala are pertaining to misuse of power, nepotism and violation of the oath of office.

It is not clear in the Lokayukta report as to why the prosecution was not ordered.

The Lokayukta verdict came on a complaint led by a Muslim Youth League leader in November 2018, alleging that KT Adeeb, a cousin of Jaleel, was appointed general manager in the Kerala State Minorities Development Finance Corporation, flouting rules.

A division bench of the Kerala Lok Ayukta had on Friday submitted a report to the chief minister, saying Jaleel had abused his position as a public servant to obtain a favour for his relative, and should not continue as a minister.

The comments posted here/below/in the given space are not on behalf of Onmanorama. The person posting the comment will be in sole ownership of its responsibility. According to the central government's IT rules, obscene or offensive statement made against a person, religion, community or nation is a punishable offense, and legal action would be taken against people who indulge in such activities.