M A I N   N E W S

HC lifts cloak of secrecy
Bestows moral authority on Punjab Lokpal
Yoginder Gupta
Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, May 2
The institution of Lokpal, which is facing mortality in infancy, thanks to half-hearted attempts by the public men to make themselves accountable, has been bestowed with some moral authority by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

In a judgement, which will provide some deterrent power to the nascent institution, a Division Bench of the High Court comprising Mr Justice Jawahar Lal Gupta and Mr Justice N.K. Sud, has lifted the cloak of secrecy over the reports of the Lokpal, which is sure to frighten unscrupulous public men.

Allowing a writ petition filed by a resident of Naya Gaon Karoran village of Ropar district, Mr Gurbaksh Singh, the Bench today directed the Punjab Lokpal and other respondents to immediately supply a copy of his report on a complaint filed by the petitioner against a former Minister of State, Mr Jagmohan Singh Kang.

Mr Gurbaksh Singh, who claims to be an old Congressman, filed a complaint before the Lokpal against Mr Kang, alleging that the former Minister had acquired property disproportionate to his known sources of income. He was informed by the Registrar to the Lokpal on July 12, 1999, that the Lokpal had “come to the conclusion that the allegations have not been substantiated and as such, this case has been closed and the complaint filed”. The petitioner’s request for a copy of the report was declined.

Counsel for the Lokpal contended that since evidence was to be treated as confidential in view of Section 18 of the Punjab Lokpal Act, 1996, the petitioner was not entitled to a copy of the final report.

Dealing with the contention of the respondents that the proceedings before the Lokpal are to be held in camera, Mr Justice Gupta, who wrote the judgement for the Bench, said the provision for proceedings in camera was not something unknown to law or the law courts. In matrimonial causes, the proceedings were conducted in chambers, away from public gaze. “Yet the orders are not kept back from the parties. They are not denied access to the evidence or the judgement.”

Examining the case on the “touchstone of fair play and public interest”, Mr Justice Gupta said : “Today, the country faces an acute crisis of character. There is a rampant devaluation of values. In the morning we pray, on our knees. Thereafter, we look for a prey. There is crude criminality. Rampant corruption. A spiritual impoverishment. It is to meet the prevailing situation that the legislature has provided for the appointment of a Lokpal. The purpose is to restore the lost confidence in public mind about publicmen. Will it be possible to do so by keeping everything confidential?

“A public man with a flexible conscience or licentious principles might die unlamented. But he cannot live unseen. Nor can his deeds remain unknown. Then, why should there be a cover on the dark deeds? Sunlight is the best antiseptic. Degree of deference for a person should depend upon an open display. Not on disguise. Candor has always been the pride of man. Nobody looks at a lantern without light.

“In a free society like ours, nothing can be so oppressive as a secret about a public man. Mystery unduly magnifies matters. Haze adds an enchantment to the pursuit. A veil cannot hide the villain. Nor his villainy. In certain situations, decorum might dictate a diplomatic disguise. Even silence. But the more one tries to conceal, the more one reveals. The clever shall always try to conceal their cleverness. But an effort to hide would never make a public man, a saint in the people’s eye. His deeds will speak.”

Noting that the legislature had provided that there should be no public trial because “crows might spare men. Not the critics... and making complaints is a national pastime...and mere filing of a complaint was no proof of misconduct, the Bench said the secrecy was to be maintained only “till the end is reached... Till the truth is known. Not thereafter.”

Mr Justice Gupta felt that the statute “places no cloak or cover of confidentiality on the final conclusions recorded by the Lokpal. It does not either expressly or by necessary implication say that the report shall not be revealed. It does not treat secrecy as sacred beyond the state of enquiry. The reason is obvious. If a person is honest, the people should know it. If he is not honest, the Lokpal should not hide it. The truth must triumph. The Act gives a limited protection. Thereafter, it lets the individual’s deeds dig his grave.”

Referring to the two Supreme Court judgements cited by the respondents for the sustenance of the plea for maintenance of secrecy, the Bench observed that the respondents could derive no advantage from these decisions because “there would be good and valid reasons for secrecy in matters of security (of the nation). Not in cases relating to the integrity of men in public life. They must pass through fire to prove their purity; to clear all misgivings.”

The judgement took notice of the report of the Lokpal, certain portions of which were read out in the court. Mr Justice Gupta quoted the concluding part of the report of the Lokpal, who had taken notice of the speed with which the mutations were sanctioned. The Lokpal said : “Before, however, I conclude this report, I would like to point out that it is not a case of total smokelessness. It is one thing that the complainant has not been able to put forth positive evidence to prove the allegations against the public man, but under the smoke screen of the trail of events and transactions mentioned above, it can conveniently be spelled out... that all was not well, when so much of shamlat land, there being no partition at all amongst the shareholders of so many villages, was sold for a song...

“Even though the public man is not proved before me to be directly involved in these transactions, but it is not beyond the ken of one’s experience that such like transactions cannot be completed without the patronage of political bosses coupled with a feat of strength and skill.”

Mr Justice Gupta noted that “and despite the above, the Lokpal chose to ‘close the case and order the complaint to be filed’ for want of positive proof”.

However, the Bench did not go into the propriety of the order because it felt that that “is the responsibility of the competent authority”.