Governance
Common Cause believes that administrative reforms are essential for efficient management of India’s resources, fair and responsive policy-making, and a timely delivery of goods and services to citizens. Its biggest area of concern has been systemic transparency and accountability of government administration and participation of citizens in processes of decision making, particularly those affecting their lives and livelihoods.
Common Cause has always sought autonomy to institutions like the CBI, CVC and CAG and independence for investigating agencies from the political executive. It has been consistent in opposing interference in the autonomy of the CAG, whose reports on coal block and spectrum allocation exposed huge discrepancies in administrative decision making. It also works to strengthen institutions like the Lok Pal and Lok Ayukta and the idea of ombudsmen in different walks of life.
A number of interventions by way of Public Interest Litigations and Right to Information Applications have been made by Common Cause.
Challenging the Lokpal Search Committee Rules
Through a writ petition in the Supreme Court, Common Cause challenged the Lokpal Search Committee Rules, as the rules notified on January 17, 2014 undermined the independence of Lokpal by restricting the field of selection to handpicked nominees of the government. It gave undue advantage to senior bureaucrats, most of whom are likely to be members of the IAS, in appointment as non-judicial members of Lokpal. Common Cause which has been at the forefront of an independent and effective Lokpal since 1995, considered it as a blatant abuse of the device of delegated legislation. It challenged the arbitrary search committee rules through a PIL in the apex court on March 5, 2014.
Challenging the vires of the appointments made to the Central Vigilance Commission:
Common Cause along with several public spirited citizens filed a writ petition challenging the arbitrary appointments of India’s new Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Vigilance Commissioner on the ground that complete non-transparency was followed by the central government while carrying out these appointments.
It argued that these appointments were illegal and void as they violated the principles of ‘impeccable integrity’ and ‘institutional integrity’ laid down in the landmark judgments of the Apex Court in Vineet Narain case (1998) and Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) case (2011).
Post Retirement Activities of Supreme Court Judges
Through a writ petition in the Delhi High Court on February 10, 2010, Common Cause highlighted how Article 124 (7) of the Constitution of India is being violated due to certain post-retirement activities of the former judges of the Supreme Court of India. The provision forbids ex-SC judges from pleading or acting in any court or before any authority. Taking a very narrow interpretation of “pleading and acting”, many ex-judges tender legal opinions for hefty fees and their opinions are used for adjudication to sway judgements. With the aim of safeguarding the dignity and reputation of the high Constitutional office of a Judge of the Supreme Court, the petition seeks a declaration from the High Court that the act of giving a written advice to be tendered in a court of law also comes within the mischief of the Article 124(7). The petition also pointed out how judges holding Constitutional/statutory posts as Chairpersons/members of various commissions take up arbitration work in violation of established legal and ethical norms, and sought direction for them not to take up such assignments.
Common Cause has always favored adoption of a broad based and non-transparent method for appointment to the Constitutional office of the Comptroller & Auditor General of India. The organization since 1995 has taken this issue on priority. The issue was taken up twice in the apex court, though unsuccessfully. The first PIL was filed in 1996 by Common Cause and the second by Public Cause Research Foundation in 2007.
Common Cause has also been submitting well-researched representations and memoranda on the subject to the powers that be, the latest being addressed to the Chairman of the Public accounts Committee of Parliament in November 2012, when the term of Mr. Vinod Rai was drawing to a close. Our fears proved true, when the then central government named the then defense secretary as the CAG, provoking a conflict of interest. The move prompted Dr. BP Mathur (Ex-deputy CAG) and KK Jaswal (ex-Secretary, Government of India), both from Common Cause challenging the appointment.
Petition challenging Orders of the LG by which the recommendations of Lokayukta was rejected
Common Cause through a writ petition in May 2013 in Delhi High Court, challenged the persistent disregard of non-implementation of Lokayukta’s order for checking corruption. The petition was supported with information obtained by Common Cause from Lokayukta office through RTIs.
RTI in respect of ARC's recommendations on enactment of forfeiture of property bill & implementation of benami transactions act, 1988
Common Cause by filing RTIs has sought to enlist accountability from the governments. We filed an RTI seeking information about the steps taken in furtherance of Law Commission’s suggestion on Corrupt Public Servant (Forfeiture of Property) Bill, besides the steps taken by government for implementation of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988 along with the time and date for perusing related files. Bereft of a convincing reply, Common Cause filed a first appeal before the DoPT and the Department of Revenue. Again unconvinced, Common Cause made a written submission before the Chief Information Commissioner and got a favorable response.
