ACB again uploads details of the culprits against whom permission for open inquiry has been asked for

After lot of hue and cry over hiding details of the culprits against whom permission for open inquiry has been asked for ,  Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) of Maharashtra has once again uploaded said details  on its website.

After receiving complaints against any public servant for alleged corruption, benami properties, misappropriation of funds etc., ACB first conducts discreet inquiry and if found complaint is true then it goes for open inquiry .For open inquiry ACB has to seek government’s permission. However as the persons involved in such case are always high profile bureaucrats and ministers, government is always reluctant to give such permission. If we look at the list of ministries involved from whom ACB has sought permission, one can easily say that entire ministry of Maharashtra is involved in it. It was alleged that, that’s why ACB had taken lenient stand on disclosing Identities of culprits.

ACB  on its website regularly uploads,  Daily Crime Report & Misconduct cases registered by it, information related to cases pending for permission of Open Enquiry with Govt, information on cases pending for trial in various Special Courts in Maharashtra, Cases decided by various Special Court in Maharashtra etc. However when in last week some news papers reported the matter and status of permission of open inquiry, Initially ACB removed list of persons against whom it had asked for permission of open Inquiry. After inquiry from media persons and others ACB once again uploaded the list but without designations and clear names of culprits, so that their identity should not be revealed easily. When this act of ACB was criticized by all factors of the society it has now once again uploaded the detailed list on its website. You can see the list here.

http://www.loksatta.com/pune-news/bribery-anti-corruption-bureau-pressure-code-word-546646/

As entire ministry of Maharashtra involved in corruption, ACB takes lenient stand on disclosing Identities of culprits

It seems that after finding entire ministry of Maharashtra involved in corruption Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) has taken lenient stand on disclosing Identities of culprits. Initially ACB removed list of persons against whom it had asked for permission of open Inquiry. After inquiry from media persons ACB once again uploaded the list but without designations and clear names of culprits, so that their identity should not be revealed easily.

There are several cases pending in mantralay of Maharashtra in which ACB has sought permission for open inquiry. After receiving complaints against any public servant for alleged corruption, benami properties, misappropriation of funds etc., ACB first conducts discreet inquiry and if found complaint is true then it goes for open inquiry and for open inquiry it has to seek government’s permission. However as the persons involved in such case are always high profile bureaucrats and ministers government always reluctant to give such permission. ACB is waiting for permission in several such cases .

If we look at the list of ministries involved from whom ACB has sought permission, one can easily say that entire ministry of Maharashtra is involved in it. It seems that’s why ACB has taken lenient stand on disclosing Identities of culprits. Initially ACB removed list of persons against whom it had asked for permission of open Inquiry. After inquiry from media persons ACB once again uploaded the list but without designations and clear names of culprits, so that their identity should not be revealed easily. This list is available here. And the earlier list is reproduced below. What does it show?

As per rules after complaint is received ACB has to complete entire inquiry in six months, however as the persons involved in such cases are always high profile bureaucrats and ministers government is always reluctant to give such permission. In other words it can be said that that government doesn’t give such permission because it has tacit consent to such acts ,  hence request for permission of inquiry remains ending months together or denied , and culprits pretend as if nothing had happened.

Search of SIBS is on for the post of Maharashtra State Information Commissioners

In Maharashtra search is on of SIBS (Senior Indian Bureaucrats) for the post of State Information Commissioners (SIC). In Maharashtra, it is now high time for appointments of information commissioners. On 18th July, state information commissioner Bhaskar Patil who was initially appointed on Amravati bench of state information commission and then transferred (?) to Nagpur bench will retire. So there is confusion about which post will be vacant Nagpur or Aurangabad? Already there are three posts vacant and on 18th total four posts will become vacant.

As it is always said that information commissions have become parking lot of retired bureaucrats.It will be interesting to see whether government of Maharashtra fills all the vacant posts at time or waits for some time for some bureaucrats to become senior citizens to fill some posts. Few senior bureaucrats are about to retire in next few months. Some of them have already applied for post of SIC.

Earlier due to Supreme Courts judgement in most controversial Namit Sharma case, there was confusion about appointment of information commissioners. However, when after review petition, Supreme Court gave some relief and stay was granted on some points. but following points remained as it is. Hence, it is mandatory for every government to follow those. These points are

1) The appointment of the Information Commissioners at both levels should be made from amongst the persons empanelled by the DoPT in the case of Centre and the concerned Ministry in the case of a State. The panel has to be prepared upon due advertisement and on a rational basis as afore-recorded.

2) The panel so prepared by the DoPT or the concerned Ministry ought to be placed before the High-powered Committee in terms of Section 12(3), for final recommendation to the President of India. Needless to repeat that the High Powered Committee at the Centre and The State levels are expected to adopt a fair and transparent method of recommending the names for appointment to the competent authority.

3) The selection process should be commenced at least three months prior to the occurrence of vacancy

Government of Maharashtra has followed none of them .No prior advertisement has been given and hence question of preparing panel does not arise at all. What government of Maharashtra has done is that, it has only prepared panel from the application received directly without advertisement. Many of these application have recommendations of MP', MLA's and Political parties. Let us see whoes recomandation has more weightage? .

Why Governments are reluctant to follow Supreme Court Orders ?

In Namit Sharma judgement, Supreme Court of India had directed all governments that the selection process of information commissions should be commenced at least three months prior to the occurrence of vacancy. As far as Maharashtra is concerned, it does not seem to obey supreme courts order. In Maharashtra, there are total eight posts of information commissioners including chief information commissioner, of which four are vacant and fifth post is going to be vacant on 17 July, i.e. after 17 July, there will be five posts vacant. Forget about starting process of filling post before vacancy, government of Maharashtra has not bothered to fill even vacant posts.

That is how the government of Maharashtra honors Supreme Court orders. The history is matters under which it was possible to put hurdles before the RTI applicants and appellants Government of Maharashtra had acted promptly But stealthily. ( remember amendments to The Maharashtra RTI rules)  .But when it comes to fill the vacancies or do something for the benefit of RTI or in the public interest it doesn't even bother to disobey supreme court.

Recently government of Maharashtra stealthily tried to frame appeal procedure rules for state information commission. When I learnt about this, I wrote about it on this blog. After that, lot of RTI activists and journalists called me about authenticity of these draft rules and asked why government is trying to do this in such a hurry? Moreover, why they have not made it public before they pass it ?. The answer of this also lies in Namit Sharma judgement that was delivered by division bench of supreme me court of India on 13 September 2013  and subsequently challenged by some renowned RTI activists. In addition, we have experienced in the past that why government doesn't make such things public? The answer is simple, because if they make it public then there will be burden to make those people friendly.

In this judgement, SC had directed that the Central Government and/or the competent authority shall frame all practice and procedure related rules to make working of the Information Commissions effective and in consonance with the basic rule of law. Such rules should be framed with particular reference to Section 27 and 28 of the Act within a period of six months from today (i.e. from 13 September 2013 ).That may be the reason that government of Maharashtra  tried to frame those infamous appeal procedure rules in hurry and stealthily.

The next two orders i.e. (1) The Information Commissions at the respective levels shall henceforth work in Benches of two members each. One of them being a ‘judicial member’, while the other an ‘expert member’. and (2) The appointment of the judicial members to any of these posts shall be made ‘in consultation’ with the Chief Justice of India and Chief Justices of the High Courts of the respective States, as the case may be, Were stayed by the supreme court in review petition . However, there was no stay for any other orders even then most of the governments have not followed that.

Supreme Court had also directed that appointment of the Information Commissioners at both levels should be made from amongst the persons empanelled by the DoPT in the case of Centre and the concerned Ministry in the case of a State. The panel has to be prepared upon due advertisement and on a rational basis as before recorded. Only DoPT has has published advertisement for appointment of information commissions. No other government seems to be following this order.