Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, Nov 12: In a new development in the much-publicized Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking action as per law against tainted and corrupt officers, the Division Bench of High Court comprising Chief Justice M M Kumar and Justice Hasnain Massodi today took cognizance of the fresh Civil Miscellaneous Application (CMA) on the ‘defunct’ anti-graft and pro-transparency Commissions in the State. The DB, while issuing notices to the Chief Minister, Chief Secretary and Commissioner Secretaries of the General Administration and Law Departments, has sought reply on the CMA within two weeks.
When the PIL seeking nailing of the tainted and corrupt officers came up for hearing, Advocate Sheikh Shakeel Ahmed appearing for the petitioners drew the attention of the Division Bench towards the fresh CMA highlighting another important aspect relating to tackling of corruption in the State. He submitted that functioning of anti-graft and pro-transparency bodies in the State—State Accountability Commission, State Vigilance Commission and State Information Commission has come to a grinding halt due to non-availability of the sanctioned staff and infrastructure.
However, Senior Additional Advocate General, Gagan Basotra opposed the CMA and submitted that the PIL has already achieved its purpose as prosecution sanctions have been accorded and challans presented against the officers allegedly involved in corrupt practices. “There is no need to enlarge the scope of the PIL”, he added.
But the Division Bench didn’t find any weightage in the submission of Senior AAG with the Chief Justice stating in the open court: “Mr Basotra, you have made the flyovers but have not given the approach roads. We are going to take cognizance of the application”.
Accordingly, the Division Bench issued notice to the respondents—Chief Minister, Chief Secretary and Commissioner Secretaries of General Administration and Law Departments. Senior AAG accepted the notice. The DB also directed the respondents to file reply to the fresh CMA within two weeks.
In the CMA, the petitioners have stated that in the year 2000 the Government constituted Accountability Commission to inquire into grievances and allegations against public functionaries and this institution was branded as highest anti-graft body to nail corruption in the State.
Similarly, on the pattern of Central Vigilance Commission, the State Government came out with State Vigilance Commission to enquire into the offences alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act by public servants.
“Ever since the creation of J&K State Accountability the successive Governments did their best to make it dysfunctional by not providing the sanctioned staff/infrastructure”, the petitioners said, adding “the Commission remained defunct right from June 2008 till July 2011. Right from the day of the appointment of the founding Chairperson Justice R P Sethi the Commission through its functionaries sent various communications to the State Government for providing staff/infrastructure but all those communications gathered dust evoking no response from their end”.
In the CMA, it has also been mentioned that even the Chairperson of the Commission is without his Principal Secretary and a Junior Officer has been given additional responsibility to look after the work of Principal Secretary. Not only this, the State has also failed to provide staff for investigating wing of the Commission thereby stalling the disposal of the complaints promptly.
Similarly, the State Vigilance Commission has not been provided adequate staff despite the fact that Commission formally came into existence on February 22, 2013. Referring to a report in EXCELSIOR dated November 3, 2013, the petitioners said that Vigilance Commission has more than 300 cases of corruption which it received from Accountability Commission but there is no headway in the cases due to non-availability of staff.
Pointing towards the non-framing of rules, the petitioners said that Vigilance Commission has virtually turned into a toothless tiger as the State don’t seem to be interested in making the Commission effective by making rules so that the purpose of the Act is achieved.
Even the State Information Commission is short of its sanctioned staff and official respondents have totally exhibited indifferent attitude to the repeated requests/communications of SIC for providing the requisite staff.
The CMA has stressed that the responsibility is required to be fixed for not adhering to the requests as the non-providing of staff has rendered anti-graft institutions defunct/ineffective.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel