What Chautala has against Vasishth would seem to be little more than the fact that Bansi Lal was for his appointment. The other arguments of the Chief Minister could not be more obviously untenable. Few, for example, will believe that the Act was removed from the book only because of a bunch of ``infirmities''. The logical course for his government would, then, have been to try and amend the law. Nor will many be taken by the promise that a committee set up under a retired high court judge will lead to a new Lokayukt Act that will measure up to the exacting ethical standards of the man fromMeham. More will see this committee as a ploy, like many a similar body within the purview of the Parkinson's Law, to put off official action. What the episode reveals is that the enactment may indeed need an important amendment, though not the kind Chautala may have in mind. No such office can really serve its avowed purpose, if the rulers of the day are not denied the power to influence it disproportionately. A case can indeed be made out for reserving the least share in the power of appointment to the Lokayukt for the political executive. Substantially, that power should be entrusted to an independent panel, with a place for the parliamentary opposition and the judiciary. A Lokayukt that is largely the creature of governments cannot command public respect and confidence.

It must be hoped that the Haryana regime has not set a precedent for the rulers of other states to follow. The demand for the institution of Lokayukt derives from the democratic aspiration for purity in public life. The common people,who have ceased to regard corruption as the privilege of their elected masters, have a right to the real remedy. The Chautalas of the land should not be allowed to shortchange them.