Shashwati Chowdhury
Published on: August 12, 2022 at 20:25 IST
According to the Karnataka High Court on Thursday in Chidananda Urs BG v. State of Karnataka, the State government established the Karnataka Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in an effort to shield corrupt politicians, ministers, and officers from the Lokayukta’s scrutiny and to weaken the Lokayukta.
The Karnataka Lokayukta Act’s field has been eroded, by the constitution of the ACB, according to a division Bench of Justices B Veerappa and KS Hemalekha, in a strongly worded and somewhat lengthy judgement that spanned 289 pages.
As a result, it quashed the State government’s 2016 order establishing the ACB, thereby dissolving it.
The Judgment said,
“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 Court said, “This was nothing more than a transgression by an executive administrative order to usurp the powers of Lokayukta.”
A group of petitions challenging the government of Karnataka’s 2016 notifications to establish the ACB and grant it the power to investigate cases under Prevention of corruption Act were being heard by the High Court.
By investigating complaints against administrative activities, such as instances of corruption, favouritism, and official indiscipline inside the administrative machinery, the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, according to the court, aims to raise standards of public administration.
Pertinently, the Court also carefully examined the judgement in C Rangaswamaiah and came to the conclusion that it was incorrectly read and offered no assistance to the State administration.
The Karnataka Lokayukta Act, according to the Court, mandates that such an executive order only be passed after extensive consultative process stakeholder.
When exam at the executive’s ability to issue such a notification under Article 162 of the Constitution, the Bench noted that it was unlawful since executive instructions may only be used to fill up the gaps left by legislative norms, not to deviate from them.
“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.