news details |
|
|
| SAC, SIC, SVC; Commissions but for what? | | | Syed Junaid Hashmi
JAMMU, Dec 26: Created reluctantly, made functional hesitantly and now, three high profile commissions which were supposed to weed-out corruption from public life in Jammu and Kashmir have been reduced to toothless tigers.
Mantris in collusion with Babus have ensured that these three commissions do not bite them and instead, go for routine inquiry, draw conclusions, prepare reports, make recommendations and then, wait endlessly for the State Government to launch witch hunt, as and when it wishes. They have been seemingly made to adhere to the official stance which says "Recommend action but do not penalise heavily." And also 'Suspend officers, let them to go to court of law overnight, get the orders stayed and then, ask the State Law Department to go slow on their files.
State Information Commission (SIC), State Vigilance Commission (SVC) and State Accountability Commission (SAC) were constituted; several years after the bills for their establishment were passed by the State legislature. Government made these three commissions functional but did not waste a minute in clipping their wings when they found the heads of these institutions getting serious with their business.
If the PDP-Congress coalition clipped wings of Justice R.P. Sethi by appointing two more judges to the one man accountability commission, NC reduced the effectiveness and significance of SAC by amending the act and asking the commission to handover cases against Government officials to newly constituted State Vigilance Commission (SVC). This amendment led to more than 70 percent cases being transferred to Vigilance Commission by one stroke of pen.
SAC was left with cases against legislators, Ministers and ex-Ministers. Interestingly, proceedings in most of these cases have been stayed by the High Court and with State Law Department virtually taking no interest in getting the stays vacated; these cases are likely to die their own death. Though the Commission is headed by a retired High Court Judge of high repute Justice Y.P. Nargotra but he has been left with virtually no noteworthy work due to the manner in which State Government has amended the act.
He has thrown up surprises by initiating inquest proceedings against the Ministers of NC-Congress coalition Government but much headway has not been made. The Ministers get the SAC orders stayed by the High Court. Once the orders are stayed by the High Court, SAC has to leave the case, then and there. It is now being acknowledged all over that despite promising skies, State Government has made no efforts to make SAC, a powerful tool against corruption.
After SAC, State Information Commission (SIC) revived hopes of commoners in J&K of getting justice and freedom from corruption. But credible and undisputed reports coming from the commission bear testimony to the fact that most of the Government officers have learnt the magnificent art of providing half-baked, irrelevant and concocted information. They know well how to befool an information seeker.
Only the crusader gets information is what people on the right and left say. Ordinary people are made to bear brunt of seeking information under RTI for their justified and legal cause. They say with courage and conviction that Chief Minister Omar Abdullah may not know that his SIC has not made much difference in the lives of ordinary people of Jammu and Kashmir. They are victimised if they seek information under Right to Information (RTI) Act.
People across the state do affirm that if the information seeker insists, officers force him to wait and supply him the same after the concerned person approaches State Information Commission (SIC). And if the report does not invite wrath of SIC, in certain cases, the high profile manage to even bypass the authority of SIC. They delay information and when pressed, instances prove that they force the information seeker to abandon pursuing the cause.
Left in lurch, the information seeker approaches CIC. Though his cause is redressed but no action against the officer who wilfully delays the supply of information emboldens many others to follow suit. A high profile officer who is posted with Resident Commissioner's office in New Delhi has been delaying the information sought by an RTI activist since the last many months. When the activist approached SIC, he maintains that he did not receive appropriate response.
Recently constituted State Vigilance Commission (SVC) too has preferred silence over making a big bang. Nothing is being heard about the cases which have been transferred to it from the SAC. Whether or not, the commission has dusted the files it received from SAC is a question to be answered. Not much has happened there also despite being a full three member commission. Selective leaks do not indicate commission is serious about taking the corrupt head-on. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
