AP High Court asks for action taken on ACB cases

By S A Ishaqui

Hyderabad, Nov. 6: The Anti-Corruption Bureau’s functioning came under the scanner of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on Friday. It trained its guns on the way the ACB operates and government’s interference in its affairs.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Anil R. Dave and Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy fired its first salvo when it sought a status report on the cases registered by the ACB in the last five years.

The bench told the ACB and the general administration department to file their report in two weeks stating the number of cases the ACB had recommended to the government for prosecution of corrupt officials, the number of cases in which the government gave permission for prosecution and the cases dropped against officials.

The bench was dealing with a public interest litigation filed by an advocate, Mr D. Linga Rao, who sought an effective set-up to be put in place for uprooting corruption.

Mr Rao asked the court to direct the state government to set up a nodal agency vested with powers to continuously monitor the implementation of developmental and welfare programmes of the state.

The bench pointed out to him that while setting up a nodal agency to control corruption in all government departments was his idea, there was every possibility of that agency itself turning corrupt.

The bench asked the advocate who will control the controller in such a case.

The petitioner cited a recent order of the High Court, which sought a uniform policy to be followed by the government in its approach towards those government staff and officials charged with corruption cases.

Mr Ravikiran Rao, counsel for the ACB, told the court that they were finding it embarrassing to keep quiet when the government issues withdrawal (of prosecution) orders at the fag-end of its corruption trials.

When the petitioner tried to raise corruption charges against certain government departments like mining, the bench asked him to raise them only after making the authorities concerned parties to this litigation.

The petitioner wanted the court to direct the authorities to strengthen the hands of ACB. He also sought a direction to the state that it should not resort to needless interference in the affairs of ACB.