Meaningful consultation in Upa-Lokayukta appointments is mandatory, and no single consultee's view automatically prevails.

Appointment of an Upa-Lokayukta under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act required meaningful consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court and the other named constitutional authorities. Consultation meant full disclosure of relevant material, awareness of the names under consideration, and a real exchange of views among all consultees. The Chief Justice's opinion did not have primacy in this multi-authority consultative process. Because the Chief Justice was not consulted on the specific final name and the mandatory consultative process was not completed, the appointment was held invalid and void ab initio, and fresh action was directed in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appointment of an Upa-Lokayukta under Section 3(2)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 required meaningful consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court and the other named constitutional authorities; (ii) whether the Chief Justice's view had primacy in the consultative process; and (iii) whether the impugned appointment was valid in the absence of such consultation.

Issue (i): Whether the appointment of an Upa-Lokayukta under Section 3(2)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 required meaningful consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court and the other named constitutional authorities.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Act shows that the Upa-Lokayukta performs investigative functions with quasi-judicial elements, but his reports are recommendatory and do not themselves determine civil rights. Section 3(2)(b) makes consultation with the Chief Justice and the other named constitutional functionaries mandatory. Consultation, as used in the provision, requires full disclosure of relevant material, knowledge of the names under consideration, and a real exchange of views so that each consultee is aware of the others' views.

Conclusion: Meaningful consultation with all named consultees was mandatory.

Issue (ii): Whether the Chief Justice's view had primacy in the consultative process.

Analysis: The Court held that primacy of the Chief Justice's view is not a necessary implication of Section 3(2)(b). Unlike provisions governing judicial appointments or certain statutory posts where only the Chief Justice is the consultee, the present provision requires consultation with several constitutional authorities. Their views cannot be subordinated to the Chief Justice alone, and the final advice to the Governor rests with the Chief Minister after due consultation.

Conclusion: The Chief Justice's view did not have primacy under Section 3(2)(b).

Issue (iii): Whether the impugned appointment was valid in the absence of such consultation.

Analysis: The materials showed that the Chief Justice was not consulted on the specific name finally recommended, and the requisite exchange of views did not take place. Since the mandatory consultative requirement was not satisfied, the appointment could not be sustained in law.

Conclusion: The appointment was invalid and void ab initio.

Final Conclusion: The statutory consultation requirement for appointment of an Upa-Lokayukta was not complied with, the Chief Justice's view did not enjoy primacy, and the appointment could not stand. The appeals succeeded to the extent that the impugned appointment was set aside and fresh action was directed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute requires appointment on the advice of a Chief Minister in consultation with multiple constitutional authorities, the consultation must be real and effective, but no single consultee's opinion automatically acquires primacy unless the statute so provides; failure to consult as required renders the appointment void.

---