'CM's arguments not satisfactory'

BANSY KALAPPA / TNN / Aug 12, 2007, 02:23 IST

Share

AA

Text Size

Small
Medium
Large

Chief minister bailed out two of his cabinet colleagues by rejecting Lok Ayukta Santosh Hegde's recommendation that he drop them for not filing details of their assets as required.

BANGALORE: Chief Minister H D Kumaraswamy bailed out two of his Cabinet colleagues by rejecting Lok Ayukta Santosh Hegde's recommendation that he drop them for not filing details of their assets as required. On Saturday, the Lok Ayukta spoke to TOI about it. Excerpts from the interview:
Are you convinced by CM H D Kumaraswamy's arguments in rejecting the Lok Ayukta's recommendation to drop the two ministers Sharanabasappa, Darshanapur and Alkod Hanumanthappa?
I am not convinced.
What is the legal recourse for you?

As a legal recourse, I will send a report to the governor on this issue.
Do you agree with the CM's contention that publicity given to the issue was punitive?
I don't know if publicity given to the issue is punitive because the Lok Ayukta Act provides for it. The law clearly provides for it, saying it has to be published in three newspapers. I was only following the law laid down by the high court in the Hottepaksha Rangaswamy case that "such persons have to demit office.'' I'll not accept the opinion that publicity given to the issue was punitive.

The CM said you have the power to condone delay in filing declaration of assets...
I have no power to condone delay in filing returns according to my understanding of the law. However, I have given my reasons why I would not condone the delay even If I had the power to condone. The reason is these two persons are holding responsible posts. And also that they have not given the statements not only for 2005 but also for 2004.
In defence of the ministers, the CM said that people in public life have no time for personal work...
If someone has no time for personal work for a day or two or even a month, it is understandable. But someone not filing it for a year and the next year too by not filing it in eight months! They did not file their returns even after official notices were served on them. I cant accept the reasoning of the chief minister. The law cannot be different for people in power and ordinary people.
The CM said you had closed the case. Under which powers have you reopened it?
In this case, the matter was closed on an erroneous assumption that these two persons were not ministers, but when it was brought to my notice that they were indeed ministers it was duty-bound to correct my mistake. I have done this in public interest considering the Supreme Court has said when an authority makes an order on a factually erroneous ground, then he/she has an obligation to correct it when the mistake is brought to his his notice.
Is the recommendation to remove ministers disproportionate to the misconduct?
When the law says he has to demit office, can I say he has to be removed for one day or two days? The high court has said here proportionality is taken into consideration. It is an issue to be decided by a court of law if at all.
The CM said a writ petition was pending before the court...
But the high court never granted a stay on this issue. The argument is neither here nor there.
The CM has refused to accept Lok Ayukta's recommendation to dismiss the two ministers...
The CM is well within his power to accept or reject my recommendations, whether it can be justified or not.
Do you feel frustrated with this development because the very purpose is defeated?
As a lawyer, I have argued before judges and there are occasions when they have not accepted what I said. I have enough experience both as a judge and Lok Ayukta to deal with this. I am trained to accept the legal consequences.
When I send a recommendation I have no hope about it being accepted.
bansy.kalappa@timesgroup.com

End of Article

FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA