The Karnataka High Court on Thursday abolished the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) established by the State government by way of a a notification dated March 14, 2016 [Chidananda Urs BG v State of Karnataka]..A division bench of Justices B Veerappa and KS Hemalekha passed the order in a batch of petitions challenging the constitution of the ACB, which had withdrawn to itself powers from the Karnataka Lokayukta under the Prevention of Corruption Act."The State Government is not justified in constituting ACB by way of an executive government order date March 14, 2016 when the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 has occupied the field to eradicate corruption in the State of Karnataka," said the bench.All State government notifications issued pursuant to the March 2016 order were also quashed. With this, it was directed that all cases pending before the ACB be transferred to the Karnataka Lokayukta..The Court, while making certain recommendations to the State, said that the police wing of the Karnataka Lokayukta has to be strengthened by appointing honest persons with a track record of integrity and fairness.The Court also noted that only people with integrity, both in public and personal life, who are uninfluenced by caste, creed etc. should be appointed to the post of Lokayukta. Additionally, it was stated that there should be transparency in such appointments."Before parting with the matter, we deem it proper to observe that in order to eradicate corruption, keeping in view the Karnataka Lokayukta Act and the interest of justice qua public at large we request constitutional authorities to recommend people with integrity, both in public and personal life to the post of Lokayukta, uninfluenced by caste, creed etc. and maintain transparency in appointment should be non-political and the post should not be accommodation centre for anybody," the Court recorded. .Further, it was recommended that the police personnel presently working at the ACB shall be transferred to the Karnataka Lokayukta Police Wing, in order to strengthen it and all officers presently working at the ACB shall be under the administrative control of the Lokayukta..The ACB had recently come under scanner when a single-judge of the High Court, hearing another case, had made strong remarks against the ACB and the Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) of the ACB, Seemanth Kumar Singh.Justice HP Sandesh had revealed in open court that he received threats of a transfer for monitoring certain cases being handled by the Bureau."Your ADGP so powerful (unclear). Some persons spoke to one of our High Court judges. That judge came and sat with me and he said giving an example of transferring of one of the judge to some other district. I will not hesitate to mention the name of the judge also! He came and sat by the side of me and there is a threat to this court," Justice Sandesh had orally remarked.Subsequently, he had, on July 12, recorded the details of the same in an order. The ACB and Singh had challenged the same before the Supreme Court which, on July 18, stayed the observations and order. Story to be updated.
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday abolished the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) established by the State government by way of a a notification dated March 14, 2016 [Chidananda Urs BG v State of Karnataka]..A division bench of Justices B Veerappa and KS Hemalekha passed the order in a batch of petitions challenging the constitution of the ACB, which had withdrawn to itself powers from the Karnataka Lokayukta under the Prevention of Corruption Act."The State Government is not justified in constituting ACB by way of an executive government order date March 14, 2016 when the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 has occupied the field to eradicate corruption in the State of Karnataka," said the bench.All State government notifications issued pursuant to the March 2016 order were also quashed. With this, it was directed that all cases pending before the ACB be transferred to the Karnataka Lokayukta..The Court, while making certain recommendations to the State, said that the police wing of the Karnataka Lokayukta has to be strengthened by appointing honest persons with a track record of integrity and fairness.The Court also noted that only people with integrity, both in public and personal life, who are uninfluenced by caste, creed etc. should be appointed to the post of Lokayukta. Additionally, it was stated that there should be transparency in such appointments."Before parting with the matter, we deem it proper to observe that in order to eradicate corruption, keeping in view the Karnataka Lokayukta Act and the interest of justice qua public at large we request constitutional authorities to recommend people with integrity, both in public and personal life to the post of Lokayukta, uninfluenced by caste, creed etc. and maintain transparency in appointment should be non-political and the post should not be accommodation centre for anybody," the Court recorded. .Further, it was recommended that the police personnel presently working at the ACB shall be transferred to the Karnataka Lokayukta Police Wing, in order to strengthen it and all officers presently working at the ACB shall be under the administrative control of the Lokayukta..The ACB had recently come under scanner when a single-judge of the High Court, hearing another case, had made strong remarks against the ACB and the Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) of the ACB, Seemanth Kumar Singh.Justice HP Sandesh had revealed in open court that he received threats of a transfer for monitoring certain cases being handled by the Bureau."Your ADGP so powerful (unclear). Some persons spoke to one of our High Court judges. That judge came and sat with me and he said giving an example of transferring of one of the judge to some other district. I will not hesitate to mention the name of the judge also! He came and sat by the side of me and there is a threat to this court," Justice Sandesh had orally remarked.Subsequently, he had, on July 12, recorded the details of the same in an order. The ACB and Singh had challenged the same before the Supreme Court which, on July 18, stayed the observations and order. Story to be updated.
