The Uttarakhand High Court on Tuesday sought an explanation from the state government regarding the prolonged delay in appointing a Lokayukta, despite the anti-corruption institution being operational and funded annually with Rs 2 to 3 crore.
During the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), a division bench consisting of Chief Justice Guhanathan Narendar and Justice Ashish Naithani directed the Chief Secretary to submit an affidavit detailing the reasons for the holdup. The court’s directive followed the Chief Standing Counsel Chandrashekhar Rawat’s request for additional time to finalize the appointment, mentioning that a committee led by the Chief Minister was already in place for this purpose.
The PIL, filed by Golapar resident Ravi Shankar Joshi, highlights the government’s failure to appoint a Lokayukta, which has led to significant expenditures without corresponding anti-corruption activities. Joshi’s petition also points out that states like Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh have seen effective action against corruption by their respective Lokayuktas, contrasting sharply with the situation in Uttarakhand.
The absence of a Lokayukta in Uttarakhand, according to the PIL, has not only exacerbated the corruption issues but also increased the burden on the high court, as every minor corruption-related issue ends up in judicial proceedings. This, in turn, adds to the already pending cases in the judiciary.
Furthermore, the petition criticizes the control and political influence over all state investigation agencies, noting that no agency currently has the authority to file cases against gazetted officers independently. It also mentions that even the vigilance department is part of the state police, which falls under the direct control of the Chief Minister’s office.
The petitioner’s counsel emphasized that the High Court had previously requested a report from the state government regarding the Lokayukta’s appointment. Despite this, and the filing of a contempt petition against the Chief Secretary for not adhering to the court’s earlier directions, no report has been submitted to date.
