*AG reiterates Govt’s stand taken before Writ Court
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Dec 1: Stating that Jammu and Kashmir State Accountability Commission has been grounded due to snatching of its suo-moto powers, Senior Advocate of Supreme Court of India, Colin Gonslaves today argued before the Division Bench of State High Court that the verdict of the Single Judge has narrowed down the scope of the special legislation, which was however, enacted to investigate and enquire complaints against the erring public functionaries.
The noted lawyer of the Apex Court appeared before the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat on behalf of the State Accountability Commission and argued the appeals filed against the judgment of Single Judge whereby it was held that SAC lacks suo-moto powers. Moreover, the Writ Court had also quashed Regulation No.9 of the SAC which empowers the Commission to hear matters suo-moto.
At the very outset, Senior Advocate Gonslaves assailed the findings of the Writ Court and submitted, “provisions of the Act were required to be given a purposive interpretation but the Writ Court despite noticing the menace of corruption in the State gave a strict interpretation and narrowed down the scope of the special legislation by snatching suo-moto powers”.
He further submitted that Writ Court Judgment has clipped the wings of the highest anti-graft body and the result of the same is that Commission comprising three former Judges of the High Court cannot take note of a credible newspaper report, sting operation from a renowned channel and information received unanimous but factually correct.
Referring to Supreme Court judgments to tell that anti-corruption legislation was to be given a constructive and purposive interpretation to achieve the object of good governance, he placed different situations before the DB to plead that the SAC becomes the guardian of the complaint against public functionary and that it should not be rendered powerless so as to render a complaint infructuous once the complainant disappears for unknown reasons. “The Commission should be credited with a power to take its probe to the logical conclusion”, he said, adding “viewed this, even an anonymous complaint or a media report deserves cognizance by the Commission to achieve the object of the Act”.
He specifically highlighted NRHM scam in Bihar and the bungling in the implementation of MGREGA highlighted through media and its cognizance taken by the Tribunals/Courts. “The broader scheme of the SAC Act read with its preamble do envisage the suo-moto powers to SAC”, Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court said.
He, while highlighting various judgments delivered by the Supreme Court of India in Subramanyam Swamy’s cases governing corruption and also the petitions filed by Prashant Bhushan built up his case before the DB that SAC do have the powers to hear suo-moto matter.
While advancing his case, he referred the much publicized case of Ranjit Sinha, former CBI Director, who was divested of the supervision of the 2G and Coal Block cases. He highlighted as to how Prashant Bhushan placed reliance upon a visiting register at the residence of Ranjit Sinha and despite directions of the Supreme Court Prashant Bhushan didn’t disclose the source of the visiting Register and subsequently Apex Court appointed an Amicus Curiae to verify the genuineness of the visiting Register and the contentions raised by Prashant Bhushan.
He also highlighted that the scheme of the SAC Act permits the impleadment of proper/necessary parties for arriving at a just conclusion. He also countered the argument with regard to the maintainability of the appeals filed by State Accountability Commission as the counsel representing the respondents had vociferously argued on the last date of the hearing that Court/Commission cannot defend its orders.
In this regard, he referred a latest judgment of the Apex Court which provides that Tribunals/Commissions in particular situation can defend its orders. He further strenuously argued that in cases involving high-ups, the complainants sometimes lose interest or come under pressure and are not represented by effective lawyers and in such a situation the Commissions can justify the orders passed by it.
He further submitted that a very conservative view was taken by the Writ Court particularly in a case where anti-corruption legislation was involved, adding “interpretation advancing the cause against corruption should have been given in the instant case and by virtue of impugned judgment the SAC has been grounded”. He said that in the year 2002 the duly elected democratic Government came out with a comprehensive legislation to establish internal watchdog but thereafter number of amendments were carried out to make the Commission ineffective and toothless as such the very spirit of the legislation was defeated.
Senior Advocate Colin Gonslaves was assisted by Advocate Pranav Kohli where as Senior Advocate P N Raina with Advocate J A Hamal resisted the arguments of Colin Gonslaves. Senior Advocate Raina, while challenging the maintainability of the appeal, said that appeal is a creation of statute and the appeals in this case are in-competent and are required to be dismissed.
He referred a judgment of Kerala High Court whereby it was held that the Kerala Lokayukta doesn’t have the power to hear the matter suo-moto. He further argued that the legislation of Kerala is analogous to the SAC Act and the judgment from Kerala High Court governs the field.
Since court time was about to over, the DB directed the Registry to list this matter for continuation on December 15, 2015. At this stage, Advocate General Jahangir Iqbal Ganie drew the attention of DB towards the written instruction received by him from the State Government to the effect that the SAC doesn’t have the power to hear the matter suo-moto.
However, the DB asked the AG to file it properly in the court.
Follow our WhatsApp channel