By ARUN PRATAP SINGH
Garhwal Post Bureau
Nainital, 2 Sep: Uttarakhand Government informed the Uttarakhand High Court today that the process for appointment of the Lok Ayukta in the state is underway. The government made the submission during the hearing of a public interest litigation (PIL) filed in 2021 by Goulapar resident Ravi Shankar Joshi seeking appointment of a Lok Ayukta in Uttarakhand.
During the hearing today, the state government submitted a report in compliance with the court’s earlier order. The report stated that the process for appointment of the Lok Ayukta is currently in progress. The government further informed the court that a panel comprising the Lok Ayukta and its members is being prepared and would be placed before the Search Committee for consideration. The government accordingly sought four weeks’ time to complete the process.
The division bench granted the state government four weeks’ time and directed it to submit a progress report before the next date of hearing. The matter was heard by a division bench comprising of Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay.
The PIL filed by Ravi Shankar Joshi, a resident of Goulapar in Haldwani, has raised questions over the prolonged vacancy in the office of the Lok Ayukta in Uttarakhand. The petitioner has also pointed out that despite the Lok Ayukta institution having remained without a regular head for several years, the state government continues to incur annual expenditure of around Rs 2 to 3 crores in its name.
The petition states that Lok ayuktas in states such as Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh have taken stringent action against cases of corruption after their appointment, whereas cases of scams, irregularities and alleged corruption continue to surface frequently in Uttarakhand.
According to the petitioner, even relatively small matters are having to be brought before the Nainital High Court for judicial intervention. The PIL has also raised concerns over the existing mechanism for investigation of corruption cases, stating that various investigating agencies in the state are under the direct control of the government and, ultimately, the political executive.
The petition further states that there is presently no investigating agency in Uttarakhand empowered to register a corruption case against a gazetted officer without prior permission from the government. It has argued that this situation raises questions over the independence of the investigation process, particularly in cases involving government officials.
The petitioner has also questioned the functioning of the Vigilance Department, which is often projected as an agency for conducting independent and impartial investigations into corruption cases. The PIL contends that the Vigilance Department is itself a part of the state police and remains under the control of the Police Headquarters, the Vigilance Department or the Chief Minister’s Office.
The petitioner has stressed the need for a completely transparent, independent and impartial mechanism for investigating corruption-related cases in the state. According to the PIL, appointment of the Lok Ayukta at the earliest is essential to strengthen the system for checking corruption and provide citizens with an independent forum for raising complaints against alleged corruption and irregularities.
The petition also points out that appointment of the Lok Ayukta can help reduce the burden on the courts, as corruption-related complaints and cases falling within its jurisdiction can be dealt with by the Lok Ayukta institution instead of reaching the courts at every stage.
It may be recalled that the post of Lokayukta in Uttarakhand has remained vacant since 2013. The institution of Lok Ayukta was set up in 2002 in Uttarakhand. However, so far the state has witnessed only two Lok Ayukta appointed so far. The first one was Justice (Retd) Syed Raza Abbas while Justice (Retd) MM Ghildiyal followed him in 2008 and continued till 2013. Since then, the post is lying vacant. The prolonged vacancy has repeatedly raised questions over the effectiveness of the institution and the state’s mechanism for dealing with complaints of corruption involving public servants. With the state government now informing the High Court that the appointment process is underway, the court has sought a further progress report to ascertain the status of the process at the next hearing.
