Top

Karnataka Lokayukta row : Justice Rao connived with guilty, says SIT

Rao had contended that he was working as the Lokayukta and hence he is entitled to immunity under Section 18 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act.

BENGALURU: The Special Investigation Team (SIT), probing the extortion racket in the Lokayukta institution, in its statement of objection to former Lokayukta Y Bhaskar Rao’s plea, seeking to quash the order against him, has stated that Mr Rao, the accused number seven, actively connived with the other accused to facilitate corruption through his son Ashwin and his coterie, by using the Lokayukta office and official residence for the purpose of committing the alleged offences.

The SIT made the submissions while stating that it is necessary to mention that at the stage of enacting the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, the legislature had not visualised the possibility of the Lokayukta himself becoming an accused.

It further submitted in its objection that the grant or refusal of sanction is an administrative act and the decision of the competent authority, the Governor of Karnataka, is based on the materials produced by the investigating agency. “The validity of the decision of the Governor cannot be called in question on the ground that the discretion exercised is not proper," it added.

Mr Rao had contended that he was working as the Lokayukta and hence he is entitled to immunity under Section 18 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, and Section 3 of the Judges Protection Act. The SIT has stated that the primary requirement for attracting such sections is that the purported acts should be done in discharge of official duty, with a bona fide intention, and since the material collected would certainly indicate the active connivance of Mr Rao, it cannot be said that it was done in discharge of official duty with a bona fide intention.

To the contention of Mr Rao that under Section 6 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, the decision of both Houses of the state legislature and the governor was required to take action against him, the SIT objected stating that since this section is applicable to the ‘Removal of Lokayukta’ while he is holding the position, and not for a case where sanction is to be granted or refused for prosecuting a former Lokayukta.

( Source : Deccan Chronicle. )
Next Story