Congress' double standards on Anna

While the party cited the 2005 Sawant Commission report to call Hazare corrupt on Sunday, the State Govt has been sitting on the report for 6 years despite the HC and the crusader himself calling for its implementation

While the party cited the 2005 Sawant Commission report to call Hazare corrupt on Sunday, the State Govt has been sitting on the report for 6 years despite theu00a0HC and the crusader himself calling for its implementation

The PB Sawant commission report, which formed the basis for the UPA government and the Congress taking potshots at Anna Hazare and calling him corrupt on Sunday, has been languishing in the state for six years despite the crusader calling for its implementation.

It is worthy of note that a Congress-led government has been in power in the state ever since the report was tabled.


Hazare on a silent protest at Rajghat yesterday

"He (Hazare) is steeped in corruption from head to toe. This has been proved by the justice Sawant Commission. It found that Anna runs several NGOs and money was spent illegally for his birthday celebration," Congress spokesperson Manish Tiwari had said.

Retd justice PB Sawant had submitted his one-member inquiry commission report on alleged corruption by four prominent members of the ruling Democratic Front and Hazare in 2005. Interestingly, however, the state government is yet to take a final decision on its implementation.

Also noteworthy is the manner in which the report is being kept in abeyance. For the last five years, putatively, the state has been waiting for comments by a committee headed by the State Advocate General (AG) to initiate action on the report.
u00a0
The time lag comes despite the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court directing the state that the advice given by the committee, individually or collectively, would be infructuous. The court asked the state to consider the Commission report for any action it wants to take.

The committee, headed by AG Ravi Kadam, comprises two other members noted lawyer V R Manohar and Atul Setalwad. While Manohar has clearly told the government that it will have to go ahead with the HC orders, Setalwad has conveyed that he is not willing to offer any advice.

Why the delay
After the Sawant Commission report was submitted, a task force was formed which absolved the politicians and recommended no action against Hazare. Irked, Hazare began his hunger strike against the clean chit given to the politicians. The state then assured him that another committee would be implemented.
u00a0
Subsequently, Hazare requested the government to induct one of his nominees in the three-member committee entrusted to take further action on the report.

Formation of a committee, headed by Kadam, followed. It had two other members, senior lawyer V R Manohar and Atul Setalwad (recommended by Hazare) on January 31, 2006.

As the committee was seized with the matter, a writ petition to implement the Commission report came before the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court.

The High Court had, in April 2006, directed the government not to consider the findings of the Task Force while implementing the report.
u00a0
Also, the court asked the three-member committee headed by Kadam to offer their advice collectively or individually, adding that it would essentially be a legal advice as given by a lawyer to their client. This implied that the advice would not have any legal standing; it would be infructuous.

Regardless, in May 2006, the state government decided to go ahead with the court orders only after asking the three-member committee for its comments.

No Headway
However, after its formation, the committee could not offer any legal advice for implementing the Sawant Commission report. First, Kadam asked for a status report of the action being taken against the bureaucrats indicted by the Commission for their role in alleged acts committed by the cabinet members.
u00a0
The bureaucrats were Anand Kulkarni, then sugar commissioner of the state, and MB Joshi and Sanjay Bhagat, then joint registrar and executive engineer respectively at the commissioner's office.

While the State Cooperation department absolved Kulkarni for want of any proof against him, the other two officers received show cause notices.

In the Jariwala Chawl case, senior inspector Vijay Patil, who was alleged to have interfered with the redevelopment, retired and did not face any action. But his colleague Jayant Shastri faced inquiry and was punished with Rs 200 deduction from his pension.

State Housing Department said no action was required against then vice-chairman of MHADA.

Incidentally, Manohar, in his response to the government on September 2006 opined that the state would have to go by the Aurangabad bench order. Setalwad, through his letter dated June 17, 2008, told the state that he was not willing to offer his comments.

In the years to follow, the government apprised the Advocate General of actions against the bureaucrats partially in 2006 and 2010. In his letter in May 2010, Kadam told the state that he was waiting for more information and action against a few more people was awaited.

A number of reminders were sent to the office of the AG with, requesting his advice.

Meanwhile, the government informed the AG's office that a criminal case was filed before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Osmanabad against 33 persons including Dr Padamsingh Patil.

"Exciting news! Mid-day is now on WhatsApp Channels Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!