Review jurisdiction and Lokayukta appointment process: differing statutory consultation schemes did not disclose any error apparent on record.

Review was sought against a judgment appointing the Lokayukta under the Gujarat Lokayukta Act, 1986, on the basis that a later Supreme Court decision concerning the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 showed inconsistency in the appointment process. The Court compared the two statutes and found their consultation frameworks materially different: the Gujarat Act requires appointment by the Governor after consultation with the Chief Justice and, where applicable, the Leader of the Opposition, while the Karnataka Act involves advice of the Chief Minister with a broader set of consultees. Because the later decision itself acknowledged this distinction, it did not reveal any patent mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. No ground for review was made out.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review petitions disclosed any apparent error or ground warranting review of the judgment appointing the Lokayukta under the Gujarat Lokayukta Act, 1986, in view of the later decision concerning the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984.

Analysis: The basis of the review was the alleged divergence between the earlier judgment and the later decision on the relative roles of the Chief Minister, the Chief Justice and other consultees in the appointment process. The relevant provisions of the Gujarat and Karnataka enactments were compared and found to be materially different. Under the Gujarat Act, appointment of the Lokayukta is made by the Governor after consultation with the Chief Justice and, where applicable, the Leader of the Opposition. Under the Karnataka Act, the appointment is made on the advice of the Chief Minister in consultation with a broader collegium of consultees. The later decision itself recognized this distinction and therefore did not undermine the earlier judgment. The review grounds thus did not establish any patent mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.

Conclusion: No ground for review was made out. The review petitions were rightly rejected.

---