Block investigation, appoint GoMs, Commissions, Panels

 ..“But we have already formed GoM….but we have announced the judicial commission….but wait for the report….but it is only advisory, not binding”..

These are the kind of statements you hear in response to any query regarding an action against the corrupt. It has become a routine exercise from government spokesperson to ruling party spokespersons. Political pressure has left no vigor in investigative agencies. They keep forming GoMs. It leads to nothing.

UPA Government, facing fresh scams every day, appointed a group of ministers (GoM) to look into developing a mechanism to effectively deal with corruption involving public administrators. The GoM will look into altering article 311 of the Indian constitution. A media report also added that this GoM may suggest constitution of a new agency which will dilute the role of CBI, ED in terms of investigation. This group, of all key ministers in UPA, will also look into the role of existing investigative agencies.

(GoM- Group of ministers appointed by the government to look into policy implication or any matter of urgent public importance).

It seems UPA believes in conventional way of handling crisis- When confronted with complicated questions; appoint a judicial commission, group of ministers. UPA left several key issues to the group of ministers.

See this- Caste based census, 3G spectrum auction, Bhopal gas tragedy, Drought in India, Paid news, Price Rise, Corruption, "No go" areas. 

These are few examples out of many GoMs constituted by government on various subjects in last 7 years of the UPA.  If we look at the possible reason behind appointing so many GoMs, we will not find a satisfactory answer. These groups serve the purpose of avoiding any public display of difference within the government on key policy issues. In an era of coalition politics, given political compulsions, differences on key policy issues should not surprise anyone. In fact, our political leaders are never shy of displaying differences on important issues in public. UPA is one step ahead. Even, minor differences, within the ministers of Congress party, also end up in GoMs. Sometimes for silly decisions which, otherwise, ministers can resolve in a single meeting. So, GoM becomes the norm.    

What do these GoMs achieve? 

They have meetings. They decide on the subject. They submit reports.

Appointing a GoM can substitute for taking an action. Appoint GoM and get away from the knocking storm. At least that is what UPA seems to prefer. Government gives the impression that constituting GoM is equal to taking action. When confronted with a problem, appoint a GoM. Formation of GoM on almost every issue is justified too. Ask the government about it.

“Yes, we are taking action”…… “No but, we have already appointed GoM on this”

GoM is nothing new though

The idea of appointing GoM is not new in Indian governance parlance. This is not first such experiment. Almost all governments at the centre used this mechanism to avoid confrontation. The fundamental idea, behind constitution of such group, was to make policy decision based on consensus. In some cases, these groups were expected to come up with better perspective on already announced government policies. In some cases, these groups were expected to even suggest new policies. As we see, nothing substantial is accomplished through GoMs.

When it comes to transparent investigation, Government's delaying tactics are well known. Union government in India is also known for appointing judicial commission into anything which looks troublesome. (Commission of inquiry act, 1952). Governments have always resorted to judicial commissions to either buy time or to avoid confrontation with opposition. After 2G spectrum scam, government appointed Justice Shivraj Patil committee. After CWG scam, government appointed Shunglu committee.

What will happen with these committees?

The final reports, which will be submitted by respective committees in due course, will be advisory in nature. So, we can not be surprised if these reports are never acted upon. 

We have seen it before, we are seeing it. We are always assured, but never convinced with a satisfactory answer. 

For Instance, we had three different commissions to investigate Netaji Subhash Chandra’s mysterious death. (Shah Nawaz Commission, Khosla Commission, Mukherjee Commission). All three submitted reports with different conclusions.

We had two different commissions to investigate Godhra train carnage in 2002 in Gujarat. Both the commission submitted reports, again with different conclusions.

We had almost ten different commissions to investigate anti-sikh riots of 1984. (Justice Marvah commission, Justice Rangnath Misra Commission etc).

We had three different commissions on Bhagalpur riots 1989. (Justice R C P Sinha commission, Justice Samsul commission, Justice N N Singh Commission).

It does not end here. We recently had three different commissions to tell us how many people in our country live below government defined poverty line. (Tendulkar Committee, Saxena committee, Arjun Sengupta committee). Hence, there will be no surprise if we see no action on final reports of 2G, CWG panel. 

Our existing investigative mechanism is efficient enough to deal with such recently surfaced corruption cases. We have many different institutions to deal with corruption issues of various kinds. They have resources. They have experience. Why do we need another body?

CBI, CVC, ED are investigating various aspects of CWG. What difference will Shunglu Panel make? How differently will it probe the scam? Won’t the report be advisory only? Won’t it ask these very agencies for relevant material to investigate?

CBI, CVC, ED are investigating various aspects of 2G spectrum scam. What difference will Justice Shivraj Patil Panel make? How differently will it probe the scam? Won’t the report be advisory only again? Won’t it ask these very agencies for relevant material to investigate?  

Ask the government again. “Why the report of the “X” panel not being implemented? “No no… but the report is advisory only, it is not binding”. 

In most cases of corruption, our investigative agencies need nod from higher ups to begin investigation. Institutions like CVC, CAG can only recommend, suggest. They cannot take any action. They cannot force government to take action. They have always been used by various governments for purposes other than investigation.   

Apart from departmental enquiry and different investigations agencies (CBI, CVC, ED, police wings), we have one mechanism which deal with policies. We have 17 different departmental committees (here departmental refers to ministry). Standing committees job is to take up issues concerning legislations tabled in parliament. Standing committees look at bills clause by clause. Standing committees suggest changes. Suggestions are accepted on few occasions. Rest is same. Committees meet. Committees also submit reports. Since report is always advisory in nature, goes into dustbin.  

Our cabinet secretariat takes care of several cabinet committees. CCEA (cabinet committee on economic affairs), CCPA (cabinet committee on political affairs), CCS (cabinet committee on security) etc. It is surprising, why do we need GoMs when these very ministers are part of cabinet committees? What does the cabinet meet for? To decide whether GoM is needed or not??

The point here is simple. We already have several different mechanisms available. We do not need another GoM for recommending another agency. We need empowered investigative agencies. We need CVC, CBI, and CAG to have clear mandate and freedom. We need these agencies to have power to take the investigation to its logical conclusion. We need empowered standing committees.

It can not be denied that GoM or judicial commission is required to be formed in certain cases depending upon the nature of subject and impartiality of the investigation. There can not be any reason to keep referring to these mechanisms for every issue. 

This Group of ministers, constituted to look into corruption cases, should, once and for all, set the norms on how government will deal with corruption and freedom of investigation. If this is how UPA continues to conduct its business and  institutions are not given much needed freedom, then we will have to introduce another act in parliament- Right to investigate.