The Cabinet on Wednesday resolved to re-promulgate nine ordinances, including the contentious executive order that allegedly seeks to restrain the anti-corruption powers of the Kerala Lok Ayukta. The six-month validity of the ordinances would expire shortly.
The decision triggered media speculation that the Communist Party of India (CPI) Ministers objected to the proposal in Wednesday's Cabinet. The CPI had publicly opposed the amendment ordinance as it would batter the anti-corruption image of the Left Democratic Front (LDF) government.
The LDF had passed the law in 1998. It empowered the ombudsman to give a "declaration of guilt" against any official, from Chief Minister and downwards, found guilty of corruption, nepotism or maladministration under Section 14 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act. Such a verdict made it binding on the appointing authority, the Governor in the case of the Chief Minister, to disqualify the errant official from holding office.
The law is applied at various tiers of the government, from the Cabinet to the lowest level of the administration. The amendment ordinance sought to dilute the section because it lacked an appeal provision and was patently unjust.
Instead, it empowered the political executive to review the "declaration of guilt" independently and decide whether or not to implement the Lok Ayukta's declaration of guilt.
Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) has accused the CPI(M) of bulldozing the ordinance through the Cabinet to insulate Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan from a slew of corruption charges pending against him in front of the Lok Ayukta.
Moreover, the Opposition alleged that the CPI(M) was gripped by the fear that a declaration of guilt in any of the charges would pave the way for the BJP-led Centre to sway Governor Arif Mohammad Khan to remove Mr. Vijayan from office.
The UDF also accused the CPI(M) of blindsiding the CPI by introducing the ordinance in the Cabinet without warning. Leader of the Opposition V. D. Satheesan said the CPI's token objection to the re-issuing of the ordinance smacked of duplicity.
By one account, the CPI(M) Ministers promised their CPI counterparts in the Cabinet that the LDF would discuss the amendment to the act in detail before introducing it as a Bill in the Assembly.
