'G.O. On mandatory govt approval on corruption complaints

A submission was made in the Madras High Court today that the February 2, 2016 Tamil Nadu government order making it mandatory for prior government approval to act on corruption complaints against public servants, irrespective of rank or Group, is contrary to a Supreme Court judgement.
Counsel for petitioner Pugalendi, a lawyer, submitted that the government order was violative of the apex court judgement and would amount to contempt of court. Prior government approval to probe offences in corruption cases would strike at the rule of law, he said.
The first bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M M Sundersh before which the matter came up today, noted the submission, directed him to file an affidavit within two weeks and posted the matter to March 18.

Pugalendi had filed a PIL in 2010 to quash orders of the state government in 1992, 1996 and 1998, conferring special privileges and treatment on All India Service Officers working in Tamil Nadu on the issue of corruption charges.
He had submitted that such a special treatment to a particular section is arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable and amounts to breach of public duty on the part of Tamil Nadu.
The Supreme Court declared Section 6A(1) of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act introduced by the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, requiring approval of the central government to conduct inquiry or investigation into any offence, committed by Joint Secretary and above level officers in the government of India under Prevention of Corruption Act, as invalid and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The G.O. Said "in respect of allegations of corruption against public servants relating to acts made in an official capacity, irrespective of rank or group of public servants complained against, the Director of Vigilance and anti corruption shall forward the complaints to the Vigilance Commission and the Vigilance Commission in turn shall seek and consider remarks of the government before ordering an appropriate inquiry by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption."

The February 2 G.O copy was submitted by Advocate General A L Somayaji today to the bench.
The petitioner submitted that the benefit of government approval, limited to all-India level officers, has now been extended to all government officers, including public servants, which is contrary to the SC judgement.

He prayed that the High Court take suo motu contempt and submitted that he would file a counter in this regard.
Directing the counsel to file the affidavit, the bench posted the matter to March 18.