Kerala High Court Demands Scrutiny of Costly, Ineffective Vigilance Tribunals
The Kerala High Court has issued a stern rebuke to the state government over the functioning of vigilance tribunals, highlighting their dismal performance and excessive expenditure of public money. In a recent ruling, the court emphasized that it is high time the government reevaluates whether these tribunals should continue to operate, given their inefficiency.
Low Disposal Rates and High Costs Under Fire
During the disposal of a petition seeking speedy resolution of a case pending since 2021 before the Kozhikode vigilance tribunal, the bench of Justice K Babu scrutinized the performance of both tribunals in Thiruvananthapuram and Kozhikode. The court noted that each tribunal disposes of a mere five cases per year, a rate it deemed unacceptably low. Despite the special government pleader arguing that case pendency is minimal, the court pointed out the staggering financial burden.
Annual salaries alone exceed Rs 1 crore per tribunal, with additional operational costs pushing total expenditures well over Rs 2 crore annually. This revelation has sparked outrage over the misuse of taxpayer funds for bodies that deliver minimal results.
Historical Precedent: The Failed Munnar Tribunal
The court also referenced the defunct Munnar tribunal as a cautionary tale. Established in 2011 and dissolved in 2018, this tribunal disposed of only 42 cases over nearly eight years, while incurring a recurring expenditure of Rs 13.45 crore. The High Court had previously recommended its abolition due to its failure to meet the objectives of the Munnar Special Tribunal Act, 2010, underscoring a pattern of governmental waste.
Court Directives for Accountability and Reform
In response to these findings, the Kerala High Court issued several critical directives:
- Order a performance audit of both vigilance tribunals to assess their functionality and cost-effectiveness.
- Remind the state government that failure to adapt to changing circumstances constitutes an abuse of power.
- Forward the judgment to the chief secretary for immediate action and review.
The court's remarks serve as a wake-up call for administrative reforms, urging the government to prioritize efficient use of public resources and ensure that judicial bodies fulfill their intended purposes without financial extravagance.
