Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Aug 24: After hearing battery of lawyers for the second consecutive day today, State High Court reserved the judgment on the suo-moto power of the State Accountability Commission (SAC) to initiate action against the public functionaries.
On the commencement of hearing in the jam-packed court, Advocate Sheikh Shakeel Ahmed and Advocate H C Jalmeria submitted that SAC could take suo-moto cognizance and initiate action against the public functionaries.
In support of his arguments Advocate Sheikh Shakeel referred Supreme Court judgment in case titled Subramanian Swamy Versus Manmohan Singh wherein the Apex Court has mentioned “corruption in our country not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance but it also threatens the very foundation of Indian democracy and the rule of law. The magnitude of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist secular democratic republic. It cannot be disputed that where corruption begins all rights end. The corruption devalues human rights, chokes development and undermines justice, liberty, equality and fraternity which are core values in our preambular vision. Therefore, duty of the Court is that any anticorruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption. In a situation where two constructions are eminently reasonable, the court has to accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption to the one which seeks to perpetuate it”.
He also drew the attention of the Court to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) sub-judice before the Division Bench wherein directions are sought against the State to accord sanction against the high-profile politicians/ bureaucrats allegedly involved in corruption. Advocate Sheikh Shakeel further stated that after 25 years the competent authority in State declined sanction in a corruption case against the sitting minister.
“All out attempts are being made by the State to shield the big-wigs and under these circumstances the State Accountability Commission is required to be strengthened by confirming its suo-moto powers”, he further submitted.
Advocate H C Jalmeria also vociferously argued for strengthening SAC and submitted that despite the expiry of nine years till date none of the recommendation of the Commission has been accepted by the State. He further said that all out attempts have been made so far to scuttle the functioning of the Commission.
On the other hand, Senior Advocate D C Raina strongly resisted the arguments of Advocates Sheikh Shakeel and H C Jalmeria and stated, “complaint is pre-requisite and without a proper complaint the SAC cannot assume jurisdiction”. He also forwarded a compilation of judgments of Supreme Court and various High Courts to strengthen his viewpoint.
Senior Advocate B S Slathia read various provisions of State Accountability Commission Act 2002 and the Rules and Regulations governing the field. “The Legislature in its wisdom has engrafted the Section 24 of the Act to punish the unscrupulous complainants when it is found that complaint is malafide”, he said and referred his case pertaining to anonymous complaint lodged in the SAC against Minister for Cooperatives, Dr Manohar Lal Sharma.
He also referred the guidelines of CVC (Central Vigilance Commission) and informed the Court that the CVC has deprecated the action on anonymous complaints. He repeatedly stated that public functionaries occupying office after winning the elections should not be subjected to harassment/ blackmailing by unscrupulous elements lodging anonymous complaints to wreck vengeance.
Senior Advocate U K Jalali also projected his viewpoint against the suo-moto powers of the SAC and informed the Court that he has already furnished a list of books to strengthen his arguments.
Senior AAG Gagan Basotra reiterated the stand of State by submitting that the State Accountability Commission Act and the Rules do not confer any power upon State Accountability Commission to initiate suo-moto Action.
“State Government is very serious in curbing the menace of corruption and for that it has enacted Right to Information Act, 2009 and Public Services Guarantees Act to provide timely service to the people”, he said, adding “State is not with those litigants, who are allegedly involved in corruption and challenging the suo-moto power of SAC but State on going through the legal provisions has taken a positive stand that SAC does not have jurisdiction to initiate suo-moto action”.
Senior Advocate Sunil Sethi argued in the favour of suo-moto powers of SAC and quoted several sections of the Accountability Commission Act and Rules.
After hearing battery of lawyers in length for around two hours, Justice Hasnain Massodi reserved the judgment on the suo-moto powers of SAC.
Follow our WhatsApp channel