2013 (1) TMI 748 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds Karnataka Lokayukta appointment process requiring Chief Minister to consult five-member collegium including Chief Justice

SC dismissed review petitions challenging appointment process under Karnataka Lokayukta Act. Court held that Chief Minister advises Governor for Lokayukta ... Interpretation of language of Section 3 in Karnataka Lokayukta Act and Gujarat Lokayukta Act - role of constitutional authorities in consultation process - primacy of the opinion of the Chief Justice vis-à-vis the Chief Minister of the concerned State - HELD THAT:- A reading of the sub-clauses 2(a)&(b) disclose that it is for the Chief Minister to advise the Governor for appointment of a Lokayukta after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka, the Chairman of Karnataka Legislative Council, the Speaker of Karnataka Legislative Assembly, the Leader of the Opposition in the Karnataka Legislative Council and the Leader of the Opposition in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly. While, as per the provision itself, it is for the Chief Minister to advice the Governor, the collegium for consultation consists of as many as five other members, including the Chief Justice of the High Court. The same is the procedure for appointment of Upa- Lokayukta under Section 3(2)(b) of the Karnataka Act. As regards the process of consultation, it was again held in the later judgment that consultation is not a formality but should be meaningful, effective and primacy of opinion is always vested with the High Court or the Chief Justice of the State High Court or the collegium of the Supreme Court or the Chief Justice of India, as the case may be, when a person has to hold a judicial office and discharge functions akin to judicial functions. In the light of the clear distinction in Section 3(2)(a) and (b) of the Karnataka Act and the Orissa Act, it was held that the judgment of this Court in K.P. Mohapatra [2002 (10) TMI 783 - SUPREME COURT], was inapplicable while construing the provisions of the Karnataka Act, since, the language employed are not pari materia. It will be appropriate to state that the provisions of the Gujarat Act and the Orissa Act are identical in so far as it related to the consultation process is concerned and, therefore, it was categorically held that the role of the Chief Justice was primary by virtue of the specific provision contained in the Act. In the light of specific provision contained in Section 3(2)(a) and (b) of the Karnataka Act in the later judgment. Thus, the distinctive features in the Karnataka Act and in the Gujarat Act which have been clearly spelt out in the impugned judgment under review and in the judgment of Mr. Justice Chandrashekaraiah (Retd.) [2013 (1) TMI 866 - SUPREME COURT], the ground raised in these review petitions which have been dealt with in detail in the judgment under review and concluded by adducing adequate reasons, we are convinced that no case for review is made out and there is no apparent error in the impugned judgment. These review petitions are, therefore, dismissed. Issues:Interpretation of language of Section 3 in Karnataka Lokayukta Act and Gujarat Lokayukta Act, role of constitutional authorities in consultation process, primacy of Chief Justice's opinion in appointment process.Interpretation of Language of Section 3:The judgment discussed the appointment process of Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta under Section 3 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act and the Gujarat Lokayukta Act. It highlighted that in the Karnataka Act, the Chief Minister advises the Governor for appointments after consultation with various authorities, including the Chief Justice. In contrast, the Gujarat Act specifies that the Lokayukta shall be appointed after consultation with the Chief Justice and the Leader of the Opposition. The Court emphasized the different consultation procedures in each Act and concluded that the Chief Justice's role in Gujarat has primacy in the appointment process.Role of Constitutional Authorities in Consultation Process:The judgment analyzed the consultation process in various Lokayukta Acts of different states, noting the varied eligibility criteria, selection methods, and consultative procedures. It highlighted that in states like Gujarat, Assam, and Delhi, the Chief Ministers could participate in the process, but the Chief Justices had primacy in the appointment of Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta. The Court emphasized that consultation should be meaningful and effective, with the primacy of opinion vested in the High Court or Chief Justice when appointing individuals for judicial roles.Primacy of Chief Justice's Opinion:The judgment compared the provisions of the Karnataka Act and the Orissa Act regarding the consultation process for Lokayukta appointments. It noted that the Orissa Act mandated consultation with the Chief Justice, giving his opinion primacy. However, in the Karnataka Act, the Governor could appoint based on the Chief Minister's advice, with the Chief Justice being one of several consultees. The Court concluded that the Chief Justice's opinion did not have primacy in Karnataka's appointment process, as the statute required the Governor to act on the Chief Minister's advice, not the Chief Justice's opinion.In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions, finding no grounds for review as there was no apparent error in the original judgment. The Court emphasized the distinct features of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act and the Gujarat Lokayukta Act, highlighting the different roles of the Chief Minister and Chief Justice in the appointment processes of Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta in the respective states.