2013 (1) TMI 866 - SC - Indian Laws

Chief Minister's Role Key in Lokayukta Appointment; Consultation Must Be Meaningful

Mr. Justice Chandrashekaraiah (Retd.) Versus Janekere C. Krishna & Ors. etc.

The Supreme Court held that the Chief Justice's opinion does not have primacy in the appointment of Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta under the Karnataka ... Whether the views expressed by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka has got primacy while making appointment to the post of Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta by the Governor of Karnataka in exercise of powers conferred on him under Section 3(2)(a) and (b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984? - Held that:- The mechanics of the working of a statute has to be decoded from the contents of the statute and the words used therein; otherwise there is a possibility of committing a serious error. If, as a general principle, it is held (as has been argued before us) that the view of the Chief Justice must have primacy over the views of everybody else, how would one explain the omission of the Chief Justice in the consultation process in the Kerala Lokayukta Act, 1999? Similarly, if as a general principle, it is held that the view of the Chief Minister must have primacy over the views of everybody else, how would one explain the omission of the Chief Minister in the consultation process in the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 1995? It is for this reason that I would hold that a statute must be considered and understood on its own terms. In so construing the Act, no reason to accord primacy to the views of the Chief Justice in the appointment of an Upa-lokayukta under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. The judgment of the High Court, to this extent, is set aside. Merely because a wrong has been committed several times in the past does not mean that it should be allowed to persist, otherwise it will never be corrected. The doctrine of ‘prospective overruling’ has no application since there is no overwhelming reason to save the appointment of the Upa-lokayukta from attack. As already held, in the absence of any consultation with the Chief Justice, the appointment of Justice Chandrashekharaiah as an Upa-lokayukta is void ab initio. However, this will not affect any other appointment already made since no such appointment is under challenge before us. It was also contended that the High Court ought not to have laid down any procedure for the appointment of the Upa-lokayukta. In the view that I have taken, it is not necessary to comment on the procedure proposed by the High Court. Conclusion - The appointment of Justice Chandrashekharaiah as the Upa-lokayukta is held void ab initio. Since some of the contentions urged by the appellants are accepted, the appeals are partly allowed to that extent only. Issues Involved:1. Primacy of the Chief Justice's opinion in the appointment of Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta.2. Nature of the Upa Lokayukta's functions and whether they are quasi-judicial.3. Initiation of the appointment process for Upa Lokayukta.4. Meaning and process of 'consultation' under Section 3(2)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984.5. Whether the appointment of Justice Chandrashekaraiah as Upa Lokayukta was valid.Detailed Analysis:1. Primacy of the Chief Justice's Opinion:The Supreme Court examined whether the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka's opinion has primacy in the appointment of Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta under Section 3(2)(a) and (b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. The Court held that while the Chief Justice must be consulted, his opinion does not have primacy. The Governor appoints the Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta based on the advice of the Chief Minister, who must consult several dignitaries, including the Chief Justice. The Chief Minister's advice has primacy, not the Chief Justice's opinion.2. Nature of the Upa Lokayukta's Functions:The Court analyzed the nature of the Upa Lokayukta's functions to determine if they are quasi-judicial. It was noted that the Upa Lokayukta performs investigative functions and their reports are recommendatory. While the Upa Lokayukta exercises quasi-judicial powers during investigations, they are not purely judicial authorities. The Court concluded that the Upa Lokayukta is a sui generis quasi-judicial authority, performing a mix of investigative and quasi-judicial functions.3. Initiation of the Appointment Process:The Court discussed who should initiate the appointment process for the Upa Lokayukta. It held that the Chief Minister is primarily responsible for initiating the process, but this does not preclude other constitutional authorities from bringing the need for an appointment to the Chief Minister's notice. The Chief Minister must consult the Chief Justice and other constitutional authorities before advising the Governor.4. Meaning and Process of 'Consultation':The Court elaborated on the meaning of 'consultation' under Section 3(2)(b) of the Act. It emphasized that consultation must be meaningful and effective, involving a meeting of minds among the consultees. The Chief Minister must disclose all relevant facts and names under consideration to all consultees. The consultation can occur through meetings, correspondence, or other means, but it must ensure that all consultees are fully informed and their views considered.5. Validity of Justice Chandrashekaraiah's Appointment:The Court found that the appointment of Justice Chandrashekaraiah as Upa Lokayukta was invalid as there was no meaningful consultation with the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice was not informed about the name of Justice Chandrashekaraiah, and thus, the mandatory requirement of consultation was not fulfilled. Consequently, the appointment was declared void ab initio.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the directions of the High Court that gave primacy to the Chief Justice's opinion in the appointment process. It directed the Chief Minister to take appropriate steps for the appointment of Upa Lokayukta in accordance with the law, ensuring meaningful consultation with all required constitutional authorities. The appointment of Justice Chandrashekaraiah was invalidated due to the lack of proper consultation.