ACB was constituted to shield corrupt politicians, ministers, officers from watchful eyes of Lokayukta: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) was established by the State government in a bid to shield corrupt politicians, ministers and officers from the watchful eyes of the Lokayukta, with an intention to weaken the Lokayukta, the Karnataka High Court said on Thursday [Chidananda Urs BG v State of Karnataka]..In a strongly worded and rather voluminous judgment running into 289 pages, a division bench of Justices B Veerappa and KS Hemalekha opined that the field occupied by the Karnataka Lokayukta Act was eroded by the constitution of the ACB. It, therefore, quashed a State government order of 2016 creating the ACB, thereby, abolishing the body. “The very constitution of ACB by the government is to shield the corrupt politicians, ministers, and the officers from the watchful eyes of the Lokayukta and that Government is weakening the institution of Lokayukta to protect these persons from prosecution, inter alia under the provisions of the PC Act,” the judgment said.This was nothing but a transgression by an executive administrative order to usurp the powers of Lokayukta, the Court added.The High Court was hearing a group of petitions challenging notifications passed by the Government of Karnataka in 2016 establishing the ACB and giving it powers to investigate cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act..The Court said that the Karnataka Lokayukta Act was enacted for the purpose of improving standards of public administration, by looking into complaints against administrative actions, including cases of corruption, favouritism and official indiscipline within the administration machinery.However, the same was made “paper tigers without any teeth and claws” on the executive order being passed in 2016..The Court also noted that the ACB had not registered any criminal cases against the Ministers, Members of Parliament, Members of Legislative Assembly or Members of the Legislative Council, and had only registered a few cases against some authorities and conducted raids..The petitioners had claimed that the notification was to make the Lokayukta defunct and would virtually defeat the very purpose for which it was constituted by creating a parallel body.The State government, however, contended that the petitioners were under the wrong notion that by creating ACB, the powers entrusted to the Lokayukta were withdrawn since the ACB was working as a separate wing which had nothing to do with the institution of Lokayukta..The Court, after hearing the arguments, took into account the fact that the notification establishing the ACB was passed on the recommendation of the Director General and Inspector General of Police based on the Supreme Court’s judgment in C Rangaswamaiah v Karnataka Lokayukta. The same was said to be done with the object of improving the quality of administration.However, the Court noted that if the State government actually wished to maintain the independence of the Lokayukta, it could have strengthened its hands by giving it more power or allowing the ACB to work under it.“Absolutely there is no independent application of mind by the State Government before passing the impugned executive order and the same is based only on the recommendation made by the DG & IG, thereby the executive order passed by the State Government cannot be sustained,” the judgment said.Pertinently, the Court also examined the judgment in C Rangaswamaiah closely to conclude that it did not assist the State government in any way and was erroneously interpreted..Further, the Court said such an executive order could only be passed through a consultative process with all stakeholders as per the Karnataka Lokayukta Act.Examining the executive’s power to make such a notification under Article 162 of the Constitution, the bench observed that the same was impermissible since executive instructions could only fill the gaps not covered by statutory rules, but could not be in derogation of them..There is more scope for political influence in an executive order and the Chief Minister in power can misuse ACB to control his opponents within his party or the opposite parties, the Court said.“The conditions of the executive Government Order clearly depict that there is a possibility to favour the party in power or the party men,” the judgment said..The division bench bemoaned that even after 75 years of Independence, no political party in the country dared to allow an independent authority to discharge its duties in a transparent manner in the general public’s interest..On the menace of corruption, the bench said that it would prove very dangerous if a corrupt public servant continues to hold office, as it would erode the already shaken confidence of the people in such institutions besides demoralizing the other honest public servants.“If honest public servants are compelled to take orders from proclaimed corrupt officers on account of the suspension of the conviction, the fall out would be one of the shaking system itself,” the Court opined..With these observations, the Court concluded that the State Government was not justified in constituting the ACB by an executive when the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 occupied the field to eradicate the corruption.“All subsequent notifications issued pursuant to the impugned Government Order dated 14.3.2016 for the purpose of formation and working of ACB, are also liable to be quashed,” the bench ordered.All proceedings pending before the ACB were directed to be transferred to the Lokayukta..[Read Judgment]