The Justice P.B. Sawant Commission report of 2005 had held social activist Anna Hazare guilty of corrupt practice, 21 instances of maladministration and a few illegalities in running some public trusts. Dilatory tactics of the Maharashtra government have ensured that no action was taken on the basis of this report which also indicted four Ministers of the State government.
The Sawant Commission was appointed by the State government under the Commissions of Inquiry Act on September 1, 2003 to inquire into allegations of corrupt practices and maladministration against former State ministers Suresh Jain, Dr. Vijaykumar Gavit, Nawab Malik, Dr. Padamsinh Patil apart from Mr. Hazare. The Commission submitted its report to the State government on February 23, 2005 which was tabled before the State Legislature in March 2005. Instead of acting on this report, the government issued another notification dated April 25, 2005 to appoint a Task Force “for tendering its views and advice on the action to be taken in pursuance of the findings of the Commission.”
A reversal
The Congress is now raking up these charges against Mr. Hazare but it did not proceed on Justice Sawant's report. The Task Force reversed the Commission of Inquiry's report and it gave a clean chit to all the Ministers who were under the lens and Mr. Hazare as well. The charges against Dr. Padamsinh Patil were diluted, though the Task Force recommended some investigations. The State government was still not satisfied with this and appointed yet another committee headed by Advocate-General Ravi Kadam to give its views in January 2006 but nothing has come of that too.
The former Chief Secretary of Maharashtra, D.M. Sukthankar, who headed the three-member Task Force was of the opinion that there should be some investigation against Dr. Padamsinh Patil. On Mr. Jain, Mr. Malik and Dr. Gavit, the Task Force did not agree with the Commission's indictment of corruption and maladministration, and said in its view no loss was caused to the State government or any wrongful financial gain accrued to any of them as a result of the acts of commission or omission.
‘No valid defence'
More importantly in the case of Mr. Hazare, Mr. Justice Sawant had held him guilty of the corrupt practice of using Rs. 2.20 lakh from the Hind Swaraj Trust to celebrate his 60th birthday. The Commission found there was no valid explanation from the Trust in spending about Rs. 2.20 lakh for the event. According to the defence on behalf of Mr. Hazare, an equal amount was subsequently gifted to the Trust by Abhay Firodia, a businessman. The Commission found this argument untenable since Mr. Firodia donated the amount after a considerable lapse of time and it was in any case a donation to the Trust, and as such became the property of the Trust and it could not have been spent for the purpose of celebrating a birthday. The Commission observed that the Trust was ill-advised in incurring this expense from its funds. In its conclusions, the Commission stated that this expense was clearly illegal and amounted to corrupt practice.
‘A whistle-blower'
The Task Force noted that although the Commission had held this to be illegal and a corrupt practice, and said “we are not inclined to recommend any action, much less prosecution, against Mr. Hazare for the reason that his role is that of a whistle-blower and he has been working in the spirit of a missionary to curb corruption by public servants, including Ministers…”
