The V.K. Shungulu Committee, which has been looking into malfeasance in various Commonwealth Games contracts, has submitted three reports to the government so far, and is working overtime to submit its final report. Headed by a former comptroller and auditor-general, the committee made several very perceptive and far-reaching recommendations with regard to the Delhi Development Authority, and the findings of one of its reports have also been handed over to the CBI.
But even if action is taken against those responsible for specific wrongdoings in this instance, one wonders how far the government is willing to go to implement its wider recommendations. The panel has, for instance, suggested a system that would make such malfeasance in the award of contracts — by the DDA or any other public body in India — extremely difficult to repeat. But the problem is that committees like Mr Shunglu’s lack statutory powers and, however admirable its work might be, if the government chooses to sit on its recommendations or implement them selectively, there is nothing really it can do. Hence the public scepticism about such committees — not just on inquiries into scams, corruption or financial bungling, but also matters ranging from terrorism and security, to communal riots. The reports of umpteen judicial commissions suffer from the same infirmity: the action that should follow cannot be taken for granted, and depends largely on the wishes of the government of the day. Not very long ago we had top police officials examine the response of the force during the 26/11 terror attacks in Mumbai. The two-member panel made far-reaching recommendations; its report has not been made public. One does not know if any of its recommendations have been implemented.
It has been seen that only when an inquiry or investigation is being actively monitored by a court that there is any assurance of a logical conclusion to what the police or the CBI is pursuing; that at least some of the guilty will be brought to book. It has been pointed out by some people familiar with the way investigations are conducted that the appointment of probe committees in a matter already being looked into, say, by the CBI could cause immense confusion if the findings of the two are different. This happened in the case of the Godhra incident, where the special court came to one conclusion while the committee set up by the railways reached a different one.
One way out could be to develop a strong Lok Pal institution — something that Congress president Sonia Gandhi has long advocated. Civil society groups would do well to intensively lobby for this across the country with all major players in public life much in the way they did to bring about our landmark Right to Information Act. The Lok Pal should be an independent institution — working separately from the executive, judicial and legislative branches of the government. Another suggestion is to borrow an American model — and create an ombudsman for each department of the government, which would have statutory powers and operate like an inspectorate-general for the department under its charge, reporting directly to the President or Parliament. We do have vigilance officials even now, but they operate under the executive heads of their departments, which make them totally ineffective when it is the people at the top that need investigation. Till some basic systemic changes are brought about in the way we run the affairs of this country, we will have to wait and see what action the government is willing to take on the Shungulu Committee’s recommendations.