High court in edinburgh

In a major setback to the State government, the High Court of Karnataka on Thursday set aside the constitution of a separate Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), under the direct control of the Chief Minister, in 2016 by withdrawing the powers vested with the Karnataka Lokayukta (KL) police wing to probe all cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against public servants.

“The State government is not justified in constituting the ACB by an executive government order, dated March 14, 2016 exercising its executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India when the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 has occupied the field to eradicate corruption in the State…,” the court observed.

ACB abolished

While declaring that the ACB stood abolished with immediate effect, the court restored the power to investigate the corruption cases in Karnataka to the KL police wing as it existed prior to the creation of ACB.

The court also made it clear that all the pending inquiries, investigations, and cases being prosecuted by the ACB got transferred to the KL police wing for further action as per the law.

A Division Bench, comprising Justice B. Veerappa and Justice K.S. Hemalekha, delivered the judgment on three separate PIL petitions filed by Chidananda Urs B.G., the Advocates’ Association, Bengaluru, and Samaja Parivarthana Samudaya, an NGO, and a batch of petitions filed by public servants questioning the powers of the ACB.

‘CM is supreme’

“On careful perusal of the impugned executive order, it also clearly depicts that Chief Minister is supreme and absolutely there is no independent application of mind by the State government as it was issued merely based on the recommendation made by the Director-General and Inspector-General of Police (DG&IGP),” the Bench observed.

Except stating that the government had realised the necessity of a strong and effective vigilance system in addition to Lokayukta, no other reason had been assigned for creating ACB as a parallel to the institution of Lokayukta, the Bench pointed out.

It is not the case of the government that either the KL police wing was ineffective in implementing Prevention of Corruption Act or the Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta had expressed difficulty to take the burden of Prevention of Corruption Act, the Bench said.

Who will act against CM?

While noticing that the Karnataka Lokayukta Act had provisions to probe corruption cases against the Chief Minister, Ministers, and members of the legislature, the Bench pointed out that it was not forthcoming in the executive order as to who was the authority to take action, in case the Chief Minister, a Minister, a member of the State legislature, etc., were involved in corruption and favouritism.

If really the government intended to curb corruption, favouritism and indiscipline in the administrative machinery, the court said, the ACB should have been allowed to work under the control of Lokayukta instead of the Chief Minister as stated in the executive order.

“Therefore, there is more scope in the executive order for the political influence and the Chief Minister in power can misuse ACB to control his opponents within his party or the opposite parties. The conditions of the executive government order clearly depict that there is a possibility to favour the party in power or the partymen,” the Bench observed.

“The executive government order constituting ACB empowers the Chief Minister to veto investigation or the sanction of investigation. This itself defeats the very purpose of the anti-corruption drive and ACB is not at all an independent body,” the Bench observed.

It also pointed out that the government withdrew its 1991 and 2002 statutory notifications of empowering of KL police wing to probe cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act and declaring KL police office as “police station” without consulting the Lokayukta.

The Bench said: “It is most unfortunate that even after lapse of 75 years of Independence, no political party in the country is willing or dare enough to allow independent authority like the Lokayukta to discharge its duties in a transparent manner in the interest of public at large.

The Delhi High Court has rejected a plea alleging mismanagement in the Delhi Public School Society (DPSS) and seeking to appoint a retired Supreme Court judge as an administrator to oversee its affairs.

A Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said the petitioner, Manoj Sharma, was seeking a “roving inquiry” against DPSS without making it a party to the case.

“In the considered opinion of this court, the petitioner wants a roving inquiry in respect of DPSS. He wants suspension of the chairman, vice-chairman, working committee without impleading them as respondents, and he wants that a retired judge of the Supreme Court should take over the administration of the society,” the Bench said in its August 8 order.

“This court is of the considered opinion that such a relief cannot be granted to the petitioner in a PIL and in case there is an election dispute, the same can be looked into before an appropriate forum,” the Bench said while dismissing the plea.

The Ernakulam District and Sessions Court said it had complied with the Kerala High Court order to recall the trial in the actor rape case from the CBI-3 Special Court, Ernakulam, and transfer it to the Sessions Court for completing the trial and disposal of the case.

Sessions judge Honey M. Varghese gave the clarification while considering the petitions moved by the prosecution and the survivor challenging the transfer of court.

Ms. Varghese, then CBI special judge, was asked by the High Court to conduct the trial and dispose of the case on a petition from the survivor. Later, the case was posted back to the Sessions Court as Ms. Varghese was promoted as sessions judge.

Opposing the change of court, V. Ajakumar, the Special Public Prosecutor, wondered whether a High Court could delegate its powers to transfer the case to the Sessions Court. The case cannot be transferred from one court to another without notice to the parties, he argued.

P. Sanjay, the counsel for the survivor, averred that the judicial decision to assign the case to the CBI special court could not be overridden through an Official Memorandum, an administrative order. The reasons for the transfer of court shall be recorded as per law, and the parties were entitled to know the reasons for such transfer, he argued.

Philip T. Varghese, the counsel for Dileep, said the petitions challenging the jurisdiction of the court to consider the case were not maintainable as the High Court order was to conduct the trial and dispose of the case. The emphasis of the High Court order was on the woman judge and not on the court. The Sessions Court is bound to comply with the High Court order and cannot afford to commit judicial impropriety and insubordination by refusing to implement it, he submitted.

A. Muhammad, a defence counsel, asserted that the transfer order from the High Court was in order, and the Sessions Court had to implement it, failing which it would be held accountable for dereliction of duty. The Sessions Court cannot review the High Court order. The High Court and not the Sessions Court would be the right forum to raise the challenge regarding the transfer of court, he averred.

The court posted the case for August 19.

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday directed the West Bengal CID to produce three Congress MLAs from Jharkhand, who were arrested in Howrah district after recovery of nearly ₹49 lakh in cash from their vehicle, before a special court under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act.

Holding that it was for the special court to hear such matters and not the chief judicial magistrate court where they were produced, Justice Tirthankar Ghosh directed the State to produce the three MLAs by Thursday itself.

Justice Ghosh said that he will hear their bail petitions, which were taken up for hearing on Thursday, on Friday.

The lower court in Howrah, before which the three MLAs were produced on Wednesday, had granted four days’ police custody of them.

The three Congress MLAs from Jharkhand — Irfan Ansari, Rajesh Kachchap and Naman Bixal Kongari — were arrested by the West Bengal Police after around ₹49 lakh in cash was seized from their vehicle at Panchla in Howrah district on July 30.

The investigation into the case was thereafter handed over to the State CID.

Another single bench of the high court had last week dismissed a petition by the three MLAs seeking transfer of the investigation to the CBI or any other central agency.

The grant of bail to the 82-year-old Telugu poet and activist, Varavara Rao , on medical grounds is a welcome relief to at least one of those arraigned in the controversial Bhima-Koregaon case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The Supreme Court has rightly ignored the arguments on behalf of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) that age is not a factor in considering grant of bail for one involved in an attempt to overthrow the democratically elected government and that his medical condition is not serious enough. It cannot be forgotten that tribal rights activist Father Stan Swamy , another octogenarian who was arrested in the same case, died of poor health even while his petition for bail on health grounds was being heard . In Mr. Rao’s case, he was taken into custody in August 2018 and granted interim bail for six months on health grounds in February 2021. The Bombay High Court had set a date for him to return to custody after treatment, but it has been extended from time to time. Having regard to his age, the Supreme Court has now removed the time limit and given him regular bail, albeit with the conditions that he stay in Mumbai and not to get in touch with witnesses. The Court has also taken note of the fact that the charge sheet has been filed in the case, but the trial court is yet to frame charges. Further, there is no claim that he misused the interim bail in any way.

The options of an accused to get bail under UAPA are largely limited to health grounds, because bail on merits is nearly impossible to get. Under this law, the accused have to demonstrate that the allegations made against them in the police version is, prima facie, not true. This onerous condition is not easy to fulfil, especially after the Supreme Court in NIA vs Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali ruled that while considering bail, the court should not go deep into the material against a person and must decide whether the prosecution case was true “based on the broad probabilities” of the case. However, the Supreme Court has indeed got around this limitation by treating any long delay in holding the trial and violation of fundamental rights as grounds to grant bail even in UAPA cases. The Bhima Koregaon case is an off-shoot of disturbances that took place during a commemorative event on December 31, 2017 , in Pune. It was used to rope in lawyers and activists and build a case of an alleged Maoist plot to overthrow the government. There are credible reports that electronic evidence in the case could have been planted using spyware to implicate the accused. It is time the courts examined the core question whether the case itself is tenable or one fabricated to corner some activists. The judiciary should not countenance the prolonged incarceration of anyone in a case of doubtful validity.