The Supreme Court of India.
Credit: PTI File Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday criticised the alleged misuse of the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) funds by the Uttarakhand government to purchase iPhones and other items and has sought a response from the Chief Secretary of the state in this regard.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih highlighted that it is necessary to ensure accountability for the proper utilisation of CAMPA funds, which play a vital role in environmental conservation.
A report of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) noted CAMPA funds, meant for afforestation, were allegedly used towards inadmissible expenditures, including the purchase of iPhones, laptops, fridges, and renovation of buildings.
The report, which examined the use of CAMPA funds from 2019-2022, revealed multiple financial irregularities. Reportedly, the funds were also used for fighting court cases and personal expenses besides being used for purchasing iPhones, laptops, fridges, coolers, and for office renovations.
Hearing a PIL in connection with the environmental conservation and preservation of forests, the bench said that the CAMPA fund is allocated for initiatives to increase the green cover.
"The utilisation of this fund for non-admissible activities and not depositing the interest as per the Act with the SCAF (State Compensatory Afforestation Funds) is a matter of serious concern," the bench said.
The court directed the chief secretary of Uttarakhand to file an affidavit on these aspects.
It also noted that despite repeated requests from CAMPA authorities, the interest amounting to Rs 275.34 crore between 2019-20 and 2021-22, was not paid.
The report further claimed the state government acknowledged the issue and claimed that Rs 150 crore of the interest liability was deposited in July 2023. It has been alleged that a substantial amount still remains unaccounted for.
The bench cautioned if the state governments failed to submit a satisfactory response by March 19, then the court would seek personal presence of the Chief Secretary before it.