The creation of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) is opposed to the Supreme Court’s 18-year-old suggestion in a verdict, which was cited as a basis for the creation of the ACB by the State government, it was claimed in the PIL petition.
Also, the petitioner has contended that the establishment of ACB was an attempt to “overreach” the High Court’s earlier orders, including direction issued to the Lokayukta police in October last year, to complete the probe in all corruption cases, which are older than a year, by the end of April 2016.
The apex court’s verdict of 1998 in C. Rangaswamaiah’s case had only asked the government and the Lokayukta to jointly find a solution amicably on an alternative for deputation of police officers from the government keeping in view the independence of the Lokayukta and its effective functioning as matters of utmost importance.
Though the decision to set up ACB was taken when the court was monitoring the progress made, the State and its representatives have “kept the court in dark” till issuance of notification on establishment of ACB and thus, the petition alleged it was “an act of fraud on orders of the court.”
‘Issued sans debate’
Also, it was pointed out by the petitioner, city-based advocate Chidananda Urs B.G., that earlier notification entrusting the Lokayukta police wing to probe corruption case was issued after a debate on the floor of the State Legislative Assembly on its pros and cons, while the present notification was issued sans such debate with an aim to watering down cases against bureaucrats and politicians.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Subhro Kamal Mukherjee and Justice Ravi Malimath, which had initially passed the interim order stating that any action taken by ACB would be subject to final decision in the petition, widened the scope of interim order restraining transfer of cases from the Lokayukta police to ACB when the petitioner’s counsel pointed out that notification on setting up of ACB had also provision to transfer all pending cases from Lokayukta police.
With this order, though the ACB can register and probe new corruption cases, the fate of such cases depends on the court’s final verdict.
