SHIVANG SATYA GUPTA
When the Jammu & Kashmir Legislature enacted the State Accountability Commission (SAC) in 2002, it was not merely setting up another anti-corruption watchdog. It was attempting something far more ambitious. It was doing something few other Indian states had dared, that was to build a framework where governance itself could be held answerable.
The SAC’s mandate went beyond punishing corrupt practices; it covered maladministration, arbitrary decision-making, and abuse of power. In a region historically beset by political instability, administrative opacity, and a trust deficit between citizen and state, this was a bold experiment in institutional innovation, to build a culture of transparency and fair governance.
The SAC was a product of J&K’s special constitutional status under Article 370, which gave its legislature the autonomy to frame laws suited to its unique circumstances. That autonomy was used imaginatively. The SAC Act of 2002 empowered the Commission to summon even the Chief Minister, Ministers, MLAs, and senior bureaucrats– something very few state-level Lokayuktas could claim. Citizens could approach the Commission not just to report bribery but to challenge governance decisions they considered unfair, discriminatory, or harmful.
This unique architecture was significant for three reasons.
First, it was a recognition that corruption is only one part of the problem and that governance and abuse of discretion can be equally damaging to the social contract. Second, it offered a rare quasi-judicial platform where citizens could seek accountability from the most powerful in the state. And finally, it symbolised local ownership of governance reforms; it was a law made by J&K for J&K.
Of course, like most pioneering institutions, the SAC struggled with challenges. Its recommendations were often ignored, enforcement capacity was weak, and political interference sometimes blunted its edge.
Nevertheless, its very existence served as a reminder that governance was not beyond scrutiny.
With the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019, this experiment came to an end. The SAC Act was repealed, and J&K’s governance framework was brought in line with the rest of the country. Oversight now comes primarily through central institutions–the Lokpal of India, the Central Vigilance Commission, and the J&K Anti-Corruption Bureau. These bodies certainly provide robust anti-corruption oversight, but none replicate the SAC’s broad, people-centric focus. Oversight of maladministration has effectively disappeared, and the direct jurisdiction over political executives is weaker under the new framework.
Today, Jammu & Kashmir is in a new phase; infrastructure is being built at record speed, private investment is rising, tourism numbers are touching new highs and governance delivery has improved in several areas. But as the economy opens up and public expenditure increases, the risk of rent-seeking, arbitrary decision-making, and misuse of power could grow too.
To translate this economic momentum into lasting trust between people and the administration, the governance framework must evolve too. A strong accountability mechanism is not a roadblock, but in fact a safeguard for the very growth story that the Union Territory is now writing. This moment calls for reimagining accountability for a new Jammu & Kashmir. This is the right moment to borrow the best features of the SAC such as its jurisdiction over the highest offices, its powers to tackle maladministration, and its direct citizen-access mechanisms, and build them into the UT’s current accountability systems.
The esteemed, learned policy-makers would do well to consider a hybrid model that borrows the best features of the SAC but functions within today’s centralised framework.
Perhaps a J&K Governance and Accountability Authority, which could retain jurisdiction over the highest offices in the UT, including Ministers and senior bureaucrats, ensuring that accountability is not limited to lower officials.
This Authority could cover maladministration and abuse of power, not just corruption, so that arbitrary decisions and denial of services are also subject to scrutiny; as well as integrate with existing institutions like the Anti-Corruption Bureau and Lokpal for better enforcement and follow-through.
Such an institution could provide citizens with direct access to file complaints, with a time-bound mechanism for disposal and then could publish annual accountability reports to foster transparency and public debate on governance standards.
As J&K continues to transition into a phase of stability and growth, rebuilding a citizen-centric accountability framework is vital. It will not only keep governance clean but also build trust in institutions. A future-ready J&K must be not just economically thriving, but also administratively just.
The State Accountability Commission may have been a product of a different political era, but its spirit of making power answerable to the people remains relevant even today.
The time has come to reinvent that spirit, with stronger enforcement, better resources, and deeper integration with central oversight mechanisms. If done right, Jammu & Kashmir can once again set an example for the rest of India, showing that accountability is not just about fighting corruption, but about protecting the very soul of governance.
