CBI can now prosecute tainted officials
SHILLONG: In the absence of any proper anti corruption mechanism in Meghalaya, the recent verdict of the Supreme Court which quashed certain privileges to higher officials while probing corruption cases against them is a welcome step for Meghalaya.
After the Supreme Court verdict, the CBI is now free to go after corrupt officials whose existing protective shield was struck down by the apex court through this recent directive.
Recently, the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court quashed Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, which makes it mandatory for previous approval of the Central Government to initiate any enquiry or investigation for an offence alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The section 6A which was inserted with effect from September 12, 2003, had provided a cover to officers of the level of Joint Secretary and above in order to protect the efficiency and efficacy of these institutions.
The provision has now been struck down by a five-judge Constitution Bench comprising Justices R.M. Lodha, A.K. Patnaik, S.K. Mukhopadhaya, Dipak Misra and Ibrahim Kalifulla, negating the need for prior permission to initiate investigation against officers above the rank of Joint Secretaries.
In the Meghalaya context, the rank equivalent to Joint Secretaries will be Commissioner and Secretaries.
When contacted, acting Chief Secretary Barkos Warjri said that the State Government is yet to receive the order.
Delivering the judgment, Chief Justice Lodha said: “This provision on the face of it is not valid. It grants absolute protection to corrupt officers from prosecution. They don’t need a shield like this merely because they are likely to be harassed.”
There are several officers in the State currently under scanner for their alleged involvement in corruption cases in various departments including Education, Forest and Health.
The Bench pointed to the discrimination that was caused between Central Government Officers working at the level of Joint Secretary and above and the same level officers working in the States. The Court said that corrupt persons ought to be treated equally under the Prevention of Corruption Act and warned of serious consequences if any inquiry is hampered now.
Before the insertion of this section, the prerequisite to get such prior approval was part of a directive known as ‘Single Directive’ issued by the Government. This Directive was a set of instructions issued to CBI concerning intricacies of commencing an inquiry or registering a case against certain classes of civil servants. This directive was said to be issued to protect decision making level officers from the threat and ignominy of malicious and vexatious inquiries/ investigations and to give protection to officers at the decision making level and to relieve them of the anxiety from the likelihood of harassment for taking honest decisions.
The single directive was quashed by the apex court in the case of Vineet Narain and Others versus Union of India and others in 1997. Within a few months after this judgment, Section 6A was sought to be inserted by the Central Vigilance Commission Ordinance, 1998, which provided for previous approval of the Central Vigilance Commission before initiating investigation of the officers of the level of Joint Secretary and above. This provision was deleted by an Ordinance after the interference of the Court. Later, section 6A was again inserted with effect from September 12, 2003.
In Meghalaya, there is hardly any punishment against those who resort to corruption as the State Vigilance Commission has remained non functional and there were not many probes carried out by the CID related to corruption cases.
Moreover, none of the senior officials of the departments were made accountable for the scams related to Education, Forest and Health departments.