advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Friday, January 11, 2013

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 (for short ‘the Act’).- The doctrine of ‘prospective overruling’ = 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. 82. 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: 83. 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.


                                                                  REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
            CIVIL APPEAL NOs.197-199                      OF 2013
            [Arising out of SLP (Civil) NOs.15658-15660 OF 2012]

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

                                    WITH

         CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 200-202                          OF 2013
            [Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.16512-16514 OF 2012]



                               J U D G M E N T


K. S. Radhakrishnan, J.




1.    Leave granted.



2.    The sentinel issue  that  has  come  up  for  consideration  in  these
appeals is
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 (for short ‘the Act’).



3.    The Division Bench of the Karnataka High  Court  took  the  view  that
under the Act the opinion expressed by the Chief Justice of the  High  Court
of Karnataka has primacy while tendering advice by  the  Chief  Minister  of
the State to the Governor. The Court held since, the  order  passed  by  the
Governor  of  Karnataka,  appointing  Justice   Chandrashekaraiah   as   Upa
Lokayukta on 21.1.2012, was without consulting  the  Chief  Justice  of  the
High Court, the same was  illegal.   The  High  Court  also  issued  various
directions including the direction to the State and the Principal  Secretary
to the Governor to take steps for filling up the post of  Upa  Lokayukta  in
accordance with the directions contained in the judgment.  Aggrieved by  the
Judgment of the High Court, these appeals have  been  preferred  by  Justice
Chandrashekaraiah and the State of Karnataka.





Facts

4.    The notification dated 21.1.2012 issued in the name  of  the  Governor
was challenged by two practicing lawyers in public interest contending  that
the institution of Lokayukta was set up  in  the  State  for  improving  the
standard  of  public  administration  by  looking  into  complaints  against
administrative  actions  including  cases  of  corruption,  favouritism  and
official  indiscipline  in  administrative  machinery  and  if   the   Chief
Minister’s opinion has primacy, then  it  would  not  be  possible  for  the
institution to work independently and  impartially  so  as  to  achieve  the
object and purpose of the Act.



5.    The  office  of  the  Karnataka  Upa  Lokayukta  fell  vacant  on  the
resignation of Justice R. Gururajan and the Chief Minister  initiated  steps
for filling  up  that  vacancy.   Following  that,  the  Chief  Minister  on
18.10.2011 addressed separate letters to  the  Chief  Justice  of  the  High
Court of Karnataka, Chairman of the Karnataka Legislative  Council,  Speaker
of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly,  Leader  of  the  Opposition  in  the
Legislative  Council  and  Leader  of  the  Opposition  in  the  Legislative
Assembly requesting  them  to  suggest  a  panel  of  eligible  persons  for
appointment as Upa Lokayukta on or before 24.10.2011.



6.    The Chief Justice  suggested  the  name  of  Mr.  H.  Rangavittalachar
(Retd.), the Leader of the Opposition in the Karnataka  Legislative  Council
and the Leader of the  Opposition  in  the  Karnataka  Legislative  Assembly
suggested the names of Mr.  Justice  K.  Ramanna  (Retd.)  and  Mr.  Justice
Mohammed Anwar (Retd.).  The Chairman of the Karnataka  Legislative  Council
and the Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly suggested the name  of
Justice Chandrashekaraiah (Retd.).  The  Chief  Minister  then  advised  the
Governor to  appoint  Justice  Chandrashekaraiah   as  Upa  Lokayukta.   The
Governor, accepting the advice of  the  Chief  Minister,  passed  the  order
dated 20.1.2012 appointing Justice Chandrashekaraiah  as the Upa Lokayukta.



7.    The Chief Justice on 21.01.2012 received an invitation  for  attending
the oath taking ceremony of Justice Chandrashekaraiah as  Upa  Lokayukta  in
the morning which, according to the Chief Justice, was received only in  the
evening.  The Chief Justice then addressed a letter dated 04.02.2012 to  the
Chief  Minister  stating  that  he  was  not  consulted  in  the  matter  of
appointment of Justice Chandrashekaraiah as Upa Lokayukta and expressed  the
opinion that the appointment was not in conformity with  the  constitutional
provisions and requested for recalling the appointment.



8.    The stand taken by the Chief Justice was widely published  in  various
newspapers; following that, as already indicated, two  writ  petitions  were
filed  in  public  interest  for  quashing  the   appointment   of   Justice
Chandrashekaraiah as Upa  Lokayukta.   A  writ  of  quo  warranto  was  also
preferred against  the  functioning  of  Justice  Chandrashekaraiah  as  Upa
Lokayukta.



Arguments



9.    Shri K.V. Viswanathan, learned senior counsel appearing for the  State
of Karnataka took us extensively to the  objects  and  reasons  and  to  the
various provisions of the Act and submitted that the  nature  and  functions
of the office of Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta are to carry  out  investigation
and enquiries and the institution of Lokayukta, as such, does not form  part
of the judicial organ of the State.  Learned senior counsel  also  submitted
that the functions and duties of the  institution  of  Lokayukta,  as  such,
cannot be compared with the functions and duties of the  Judiciary,  Central
Administrative  Tribunals,  State  Administrative  Tribunals   or   Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forums etc.



10.   Learned senior counsel, referring to the various  provisions  such  as
Sections 3, 7, 9 etc. of the Act, submitted that Lokayukta or Upa  Lokayukta
are appointed for the purpose of  conducting  investigations  and  enquiries
and they are not discharging  any  judicial  functions  as  such  and  their
reports are only recommendatory in  nature.   Consequently,  the  Act  never
envisaged vesting any primacy on the views of the Chief Justice of the  High
Court in the matter  of  appointment  of  Lokayukta  or  Upa  Lokayukta.  In
support of his contentions, reference was made to the various  judgments  of
this Court, which we will discuss in  the  latter  part  of  this  judgment.
Shri Viswanathan, however, has fairly submitted that, as per the  Scheme  of
the  Act,  especially  under  Section  3(2)(a)  and   (b),   before   making
appointment to the post of Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta, it is obligatory  on
the part of the Chief Minister to consult the Chief  Justice  of  the  State
High Court, even though the views of  the  Chief  Justice  has  no  primacy.
Learned senior counsel submitted that the Governor has to act on the  advice
of the Chief  Minister  for  filling  up  the  post  of  Lokayukta  and  Upa
Lokayukta.



11.   Shri  P.V.  Shetty,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  Justice
Chandrashekaraiah (retd.) submitted that the primacy in terms of  Section  3
of the Act lies with the Chief Minister and not with the Chief Justice.   In
support of his contention, reference was made to the  various  judgments  of
this Court, which we will discuss  in  the  latter  part  of  the  judgment.
Learned senior counsel submitted that the judgment  delivered  by  the  High
Court holding that the views of the Chief Justice  has  primacy  relates  to
cases pertaining to appointment of the Judges of the Supreme Court and  High
Courts, appointment of  the  President  of  State  Consumer  Forum,  Central
Administrative Tribunal  and  so  on  and  the  ratio  laid  down  in  those
judgments is inapplicable while interpreting Section 3(2)(a) and (b) of  the
Act.  Learned senior counsel also submitted that the reasoning of  the  High
Court that there should be specific consultations with regard to  the  names
suggested by the Governor with the Chief Justice, is unsustainable  in  law.
Shri P.V. Shetty also submitted that the  expression  ‘consultation’  cannot
be  understood  to  be  consent  of  the   constitutional   authorities   as
contemplated in the section.



12.   Learned senior counsel submitted that the Chief Minister  advised  the
name of Justice Chandrashekaraiah, suggested by some of  the  Consultees  to
the Governor who appointed him as Upa  Lokayukta.   Learned  senior  counsel
submitted that assuming that the Chief Justice had not been  consulted,  the
views of the Chief Minister had primacy and the  Governor  rightly  accepted
the advice of the Chief Minister and appointed Justice Chandrashekaraiah  as
Upa Lokayukta.  Learned senior  counsel  submitted  that  in  any  view  the
failure to consult the Chief Justice would not vitiate the  decision  making
process, since no primacy could be  attached  to  the  views  of  the  Chief
Justice.  Learned senior counsel, therefore, submitted that the  High  Court
has committed a grave error in quashing the notification appointing  Justice
Chandrashekaraiah as Upa Lokayukta.  Learned senior counsel  submitted  that
the various directions given by the High Court in its  judgment  is  in  the
realm of rule making which is impermissible in law.



13.   Shri K.N. Bhat, learned senior counsel appearing for  the  respondents
endorsed the various directions given by the High Court which  according  to
him are of paramount importance considering the nature and functions  to  be
discharged by  Lokayukta  or  Upa  Lokayukta  in  the  State  of  Karnataka.
Learned senior counsel pointed out that the  institution  of  Lokayukta  has
been set up for improving the standards of public administration  so  as  to
examine the complaints made against administrative  actions,  including  the
cases   of   corruption,   favouritism   and   official   indiscipline    in
administrative machinery.  Shri Bhat compared the various provisions of  the
Act with the similar legislations in other States  and  submitted  that,  so
far as the Karnataka Act is concerned,  there  is  a  multi-member  team  of
consultees and also there is no indication in the Act as  to  whose  opinion
should prevail  over  others.   Considerable  reliance  was  placed  on  the
judgment of this Court in Justice K.P. Mohapatra v. Sri  Ram  Chandra  Nayak
and Ors.   (2002) 8 SCC 1, wherein this Court has taken the  view  that  the
opinion of the Chief Justice has got primacy which is binding on the  State.
 Learned senior counsel submitted that  the  conduct  and  functions  to  be
discharged by Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta  are  apparent,  utmost  importance
has to be given in seeing that unpolluted administration  of  the  State  is
maintained  and  maladministration  is  exposed.   Learned  senior   counsel
submitted that the functions of the Karnataka  Lokayukta  are  identical  to
that of Lokpal of Orissa and that the principle laid down in  that  judgment
would also apply while interpreting Sections 3(2)(a) and (b) of the Act.



14.   Learned senior counsel submitted that the primacy has to be  given  to
the views expressed by the Chief Justice, not because the persons  appointed
are discharging judicial or quasi-judicial functions  but  the  source  from
which the persons are advised for appointment consists of former  judges  of
the Supreme Court and Chief Justices of High Courts and judges of  the  High
Courts in the matter  of  appointment  of  Upa  Lokayukta.   Learned  senior
counsel submitted that the Chief  Justice  of  the  High  Court,  therefore,
would be in a better position to know about suitability of  the  persons  to
be appointed to the posts since  they  were  either  former  judges  of  the
Supreme Court or Chief Justices of the High Courts or  judges  of  the  High
Courts.



15.   Let us examine  the  various  contentions  raised  at  the  bar  after
delving into the historical setting of the Act.



Historical Setting



16.   The President of  India  vide  notification  No.  40/3/65-AR(P)  dated
05.01.1966 appointed the Administrative Reforms  Commission  for  addressing
“Problems of Redress of Citizens’ Grievances” inter  alia  with  the  object
for ensuring the highest  standards  of  efficiency  and  integrity  in  the
public services, for making  public  administration  a  fit  instrument  for
carrying out  the  social  and  economic  policies  of  the  Government  and
achieving social and economic goals of development as  also  one  responsive
to  people.   The  Commission  was  asked  to  examine  the  various  issues
including the Problems of Redress  of  Citizens’  Grievances.   One  of  the
terms of reference specifically assigned to the Commission  required  it  to
deal with the Problems of Redress of Citizens’ Grievances, namely:

      (1)   the adequacy of existing arrangements for redress of grievances;
and

      (2) the need  for  introduction  of  any  new  machinery  for  special
institution for redress of grievances.

      The Commission after elaborate  discussion  submitted  its  report  on
14.10.1966 to the Prime Minister vide letter dated 20.10.1966.




17.   The Commission suggested that there should be  one  authority  dealing
with complaints against the administrative acts of Ministers or  Secretaries
to Government at the Centre and in the States and another authority in  each
State and at the Centre for dealing with complaints  against  administrative
acts of other officials and all these authorities should be  independent  of
the executive, the legislative and the judiciary.

      The Committee, in its report, has stated as follows:

             “21.   We  have  carefully  considered  the  political   aspect
      mentioned above and while we recognize that there is some force in it,
      we feel that the Prime Minister’s hands would be  strengthened  rather
      than  weakened  by  the  institution.  In   the   first   place,   the
      recommendations of such an authority will save him from the unpleasant
      duty of investigation against his own colleagues.  Secondly,  it  will
      be possible for him to deal with  the  matter  without  the  glare  of
      publicity which often vitiates the atmosphere and affects the judgment
      of the general  public.    Thirdly,  it  would  enable  him  to  avoid
      internal pressures which often help to shield the delinquent.  What we
      have said about the Prime Minister applies mutatis mutandis  to  Chief
      Minister.

        Cases of corruption:

           23.   Public opinion has been agitated for a long time over  the
      prevalence of corruption in the administration and it is  likely  that
      cases coming up before the  independent  authorities  mentioned  above
      might involve allegations or actual evidence  of  corrupt  motive  and
      favourtism.  We think that this  institution  should  deal  with  such
      cases as well, but where the cases are such as might involve  criminal
      charge or misconduct cognizable by a Court, the case should be brought
      to the notice of the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister, as the case
      may be.  The latter would then set the  machinery  of  law  in  motion
      after  following  appropriate  procedures  and   observing   necessary
      formalities.  The present system  of  Vigilance  Commissions  wherever
      operative will then become redundant and would have to be abolished on
      the setting up of the institution.




      Designation of the authorities of the institution:

           24.   We suggest that  the  authority  dealing  with  complaints
      against Ministers and Secretaries  to  Government  may  be  designated
      “Lokpal” and the other authorities at the Centre  and  in  the  States
      empowered to deal with  complaints  against  other  officials  may  be
      designated “Lokayukta”.   A word may be said  about  our  decision  to
      include Secretaries actions along  with  those  of  Ministers  in  the
      jurisdiction of the Lokpal. We have taken  this  decision  because  we
      feel that at the level at which Ministers and Secretaries function, it
      might often be difficult to decide where the role of  one  functionary
      ends and that of the other begins.  The line  of  demarcation  between
      the responsibilities and influence of the Minister  and  Secretary  is
      thin;  in any  case  much  depends  on  their  personal  equation  and
      personality  and  it  is  most  likely  that  in  many  a   case   the
      determination of responsibilities of both of them would be involved.

           25.    The  following  would  be  the  main  features   of   the
      institutions of Lokpal and Lokayukta:-

           (a)   They should be demonstrably independent and impartial.

           (b)   Their investigations and proceedings should  be  conducted
                 in private and should be informal in character.

           (c)   Their appointment should, as  far  as  possible,  be  non-
                 political.

           (d)   Their status should  compare  with  the  highest  judicial
                 functionaries in the country.

           (e)   They should deal with matters in the  discretionary  field
                 involving acts of injustice, corruption or favourtism.

           (f)   Their  proceedings  should  not  be  subject  to  judicial
                 interference and they should have the maximum latitude  and
                 powers in obtaining information relevant to their duties.

           (g)   They should not look forward to any benefit  or  pecuniary
                 advantage from the executive Government.

           Bearing in mind these essential features  of  the  institutions,
      the Commission recommend that the Lokpal be appointed  at  the  Centre
      and Lokayaukta at the State level.




      The Lokayukta

           36.   So far as the Lokayukta is concerned, we envisage that  he
      would be concerned with problems similar to those which would face the
      Lokpal in respect of Ministers and Secretaries though, in  respect  of
      action taken at subordinate levels of official hierarchy, he would  in
      many cases have to refer complainants to competent higher levels.  We,
      therefore, consider that his powers, functions and procedures  may  be
      prescribed mutatis mutandis with those which we have laid down for the
      Lokpal.  His status, position, emoluments, etc.  should,  however,  be
      analogous to those of a Chief Justice of a High Court and he should be
      entitled to have free  access  to  the  Secretary  to  the  Government
      concerned or to the Head of the Department with whom  he  will  mostly
      have to deal to secure justice for a deserving citizen.  Where  he  is
      dissatisfied with the action taken by  the  department  concerned,  he
      should be in a position to seek a quick  corrective  action  from  the
      Minister or the Secretary concerned, failing which he should  be  able
      to draw the personal attention of the  Prime  Minister  or  the  Chief
      Minster as the case may be.  It does not  seem  necessary  for  us  to
      spell out here  in  more  detail  the  functions  and  powers  of  the
      Lokayukta and the procedures to be followed by him.

      Constitutional amendment-whether necessary?

           37.   We have carefully considered whether  the  institution  of
      Lokpal will require any Constitutional amendment  and  whether  it  is
      possible for the office  of  the  Lokpal  to  be  set  up  by  Central
      Legislation so as to cover both the Central  and  State  functionaries
      concerned.   We agree that for the Lokpal to be  fully  effective  and
      for him to acquire power, without conflict  with  other  functionaries
      under the Constitution, it would be necessary to give a constitutional
      status to his office, his powers, functions, etc.  We  feel,  however,
      that  it  is  not  necessary  for  Government  to  wait  for  this  to
      materialize  before  setting  up  the  office.   The  Lokpal,  we  are
      confident, would be able to  function  in  a  large  number  of  cases
      without the definition of his position  under  the  Constitution.  The
      Constitutional amendment and any  consequential  modification  of  the
      relevant statute can follow.  In the meantime, Government  can  ensure
      that the Lokpal or Lokayukta is appointed and takes preparatory action
      to set up his office, to lay down his procedures, etc.,  and  commence
      his  work  to  such  extent  as  he  can  without  the  constitutional
      provisions.  We are confident  that  the  necessary  support  will  be
      forthcoming from the Parliament.

      Conclusion.

           38.   We should like to emphasise the fact that  we  attach  the
      highest importance to the implementation, at an  early  date,  of  the
      recommendations contained in this our Interim Report.  That we are not
      alone in recognizing the urgency of such a measure is clear  from  the
      British example we have quoted above.   We  have  no  doubt  that  the
      working of the  institution  of  Lokpal  or  Lokayukta  that  we  have
      suggested for India will be watched with keen expectation and interest
      by other countries.  We hope that this  aspect  would  also  be  fully
      borne in mind by Government in considering the urgency and  importance
      of our recommendation.  Though its timing is very close  to  the  next
      Election, we need hardly to assure the Government that  this  has  had
      nothing to do with the necessity of making this  interim  report.   We
      have felt the need of such a recommendation on merits  alone  and  are
      convinced that we are making it not a day too soon.”




18.   Based on the above report, the following  Bill  was  presented  before
the Karnataka Legislature which reads as follows:-

           “The  Administrative  Reforms  Commission  had  recommended  the
      setting up  of  the  institution  of  Lokayukta  for  the  purpose  of
      appointment  of  Lokayukta  at  the  state's  level,  to  improve  the
      standards of public administration, by looking into complaints against
      the administrative actions, including cases of corruption, favouritism
      and official indiscipline in administrative machinery.

              One of the election promises in the election manifesto of  the
      Janata Party was the setting up of the Institution of the Lokayukta.


              The bill provides for the appointment of a Lokayukta  and  one
      or more Upalokayuktas to investigate  and  report  on  allegations  or
      grievances relating to the conduct of public servants.

              The public servants who are covered by the Act include :-


           1)     Chief Minister;


           (2)   all other  Ministers and Members of the State Legislature;


           (3)   all officers of the State Government;


           (4)   Chairman, Vice Chairman of  local  authorities,  Statutory
           Bodies or Corporations established by or under any  law  of  the
           State Legislature, including Co-operative Societies;


           (5)   Persons in the service of Local Authorities,  Corporations
           owned or controlled by the State Government, a company in  which
           not less than fifty-one per cent of the shares are held  by  the
           State  Government,  Societies  registered  under  the  Societies
           Registration  Act,  Co-operative  Societies   and   Universities
           established by or under any law of the Legislature.


           Where, after investigation into  the  complaint,  the  Lokayukta
      considers that the allegation against a public servant is prima  facie
      true and makes a declaration that  the  post  held  by  him,  and  the
      declaration is accepted by the Competent Authority, the public servant
      concerned, if he is a Chief Minister or any other Minister  or  Member
      of State Legislature shall resign his office and if he  is  any  other
      non-official shall be deemed to have vacated his office,  and,  if  an
      official, shall be deemed to have been  kept  under  suspension,  with
      effect from the date of the acceptance of the declaration.


                  If, after investigation, the Lokayukta is  satisfied  that
      the public servant has committed any criminal offence, he may initiate
      prosecution without  reference  to  any  other  authority.  Any  prior
      sanction required under any law for such prosecution shall  be  deemed
      to have been granted.


                  The Vigilance Commission is abolished. But  all  inquiries
      and investigations and other disciplinary proceedings  pending  before
      the Vigilance Commission will be transferred to the Lokayukta.”

      The Bill became an  Act  with  some  modifications  as  the  Karnataka
Lokayukta Act, 1984.

Relevant Provisions




19.   The matters which have to be investigated are provided  in  Section  7
of the Act which is extracted hereunder for easy reference:


           “7. Matters which may be investigated by the  Lokayukta  and  an
      Upalokayukta.– (1)  Subject  to  the  provisions  of  this  Act,   the
      Lokayukta may investigate any action which is taken  by  or  with  the
      general or specific approval of.-


           (i)     the Chief Minister;


           (ii)        a Minister or a Secretary;


           (iii)   a member of the State Legislature; or


           (iv)   any other public servant being  a  public  servant  of  a
                 class notified by the State Government in consultation with
                 the Lokayukta in this behalf;


      in any case where a complaint involving a grievance or  an  allegation
      is made in respect of such action.


                (2) Subject to the provisions of the Act,  an  Upa-lokayukta
      may investigate any action which is taken by or with  the  general  or
      specific approval of, any public servant not being the Chief Minister,
      Minister, Member of the Legislature, Secretary or other public servant
      referred to  in  sub-section  (1),  in  any  case  where  a  complaint
      involving a grievance or an allegation is  made  in  respect  of  such
      action or such action can be or could have been, in the opinion of the
      Upa-lokayukta, the subject of a grievance or an allegation.


                (2-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1)
      and (2), the Lokayukta or an Upa-lokayukta may investigate any  action
      taken by or with the general or specific approval of a public servant,
      if it is referred to him by the State Government.


              (3) Where two or more Upa-lokayuktas are appointed under  this
      Act, the Lokayukta may, by general or special order, assign to each of
      them matters which may be investigated by them under this Act:


       
              Provided that no investigation made by an Upa-lokayukta  under
      this Act, and no action taken or things done by him in respect of such
      investigation shall be open to question on the ground only  that  such
      investigation relates to a matter which is not assigned to him by such
      order.


              (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1)  to
      (3), when an Upa-lokayukta is unable to discharge his functions  owing
      to absence, illness or any other cause, his function may be discharged
      by the other Upa-lokayukta, if any, and if  there  is  no  other  Upa-
      lokayukta by the Lokayukta.”



20.   Few matters are not subjected to the  investigation  of  Lokayukta  or
Upa Lokayukta which is provided in Section 8  of  the  Act,  which  is  also
extracted hereunder for easy reference:


           “8. Matters not  subject  to  investigation.-    (1)  Except  as
      hereinafter provided, the Lokayukta  or  an  Upa-lokayukta  shall  not
      conduct any investigation under this Act in the case  of  a  complaint
      involving a grievance in respect of any action, -        


           (a)    if such action relates to any  matter  specified  in  the
                 Second Schedule; or


           (b)   if the complainant has  or  had,  any  remedy  by  way  of
                 appeal, revision, review or other  proceedings  before  any
                 Tribunal, Court Officer or  other  authority  and  has  not
                 availed of the same.


                (2) The Lokayukta or an Upa-lokayukta shall not investigate,
      -


           (a)  any action in respect of which a formal and public  eiquiry
                 has  been  ordered  with  the  prior  concurrence  of   the
                 Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta, as the case may be;


           (b)   any action in respect of a matter which has been  referred
                 for inquiry, under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 with
                 the prior concurrence of the Lokayukta or an  Upalokayukta,
                 as the case may be;


           (c)    any complaint involving a grievance made after the expiry
                 of a period of six months from the date on which the action
                 complained against becomes known to the complainant; or


            (d)  any complaint  involving  an  allegation  made  after  the
                 expiry of five years from the  date  on  which  the  action
                 complained against is alleged to have taken place:


                Provided that he may entertain a complaint  referred  to  in
      clauses  (c)  and  (d)  if  the  complainant  satisfies  that  he  had
      sufficient cause for  not  making  the  complaint  within  the  period
      specified in those clauses.


                (3) In the case of  any  complaint  involving  a  grievance,
      nothing in this Act shall be construed as empowering the Lokayukta  or
      an Upa-lokayukta to question any administrative action  involving  the
      exercise of discretion except where he is satisfied that the  elements
      involved in the exercise of the  discretion  are  absent  to  such  an
      extent that the discretion can prima facie be regarded as having  been
      improperly exercised.”




21.   Section 9 of the Act pertains to provisions relating  to  ‘complaints’
and ‘investigations’ which is extracted hereunder:


           “9.  Provisions  relating  to  complaints  and  investigations.-
      (1) Subject to the provisions of this  Act,  any  person  may  make  a
      complaint under this Act to the Lokayukta or an Upa-lokayukta.


                 (2)     Every complaint shall be made  in  the  form  of  a
           statement supported by an affidavit and in  such  forms  and  in
           such manner as may be prescribed.  

                   (3)  Where the Lokayukta or an  Upa-lokayukta  proposes,
           after making such preliminary  inquiry  as  he  deemed  fit,  to
           conduct any investigation under this Act, he.-


                 (a)   shall forward a copy of the complaint to  the  public
                       servant and the Competent Authority concerned;


                 (b)  shall afford to such public servant an opportunity  to
                       offer his comments on such complaint;


                 (c)   may make  such  order  as  to  the  safe  custody  of
                       documents relevant to the investigation, as he  deems
                       fit.


           (4)  Save as aforesaid, the procedure for  conducting  any  such
      investigation shall be such, and may be held either in  public  or  in
      camera, as the Lokayukta or the Upa-lokayukta, as  the  case  may  be,
      considers appropriate in the circumstances of the case.


           (5) The Lokayukta or the Upa-lokayukta may, in  his  discretion,
      refuse to investigate or cease to investigate any complaint  involving
      a grievance or an allegation, if in his opinion.-


           (a)     the complaint is frivolous or vexatious or is  not  made
                  in good faith;


           (b)     there are no sufficient grounds for investigating or, as
                  the case may be, for continuing the investigation; or


           (c)    other remedies are available to the  complainant  and  in
                  the circumstances of the case it would be more proper  for
                  the complainant to avail such remedies.


           (6) In any case where the Lokayukta or an Upa-lokayukta  decides
      not to entertain a complaint or to discontinue  any  investigation  in
      respect of a complaint  he  shall  record  his  reasons  therefor  and
      communicate the  same  to  the  complainant  and  the  public  servant
      concerned.


           (7)  The conduct of an investigation under this  Act  against  a
      Public servant in respect of any action shall not affect such  action,
      or any power or duty of any  other  public  servant  to  take  further
      action with respect to any matter subject to the investigation.”




22.   Section 10 empowers Lokayukta or Upa  Lokayukta  to  exercise  certain
powers in relation to search and seizure.  It says that  the  provisions  of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, relating to search and seizure, would  apply
only for the limited purpose of investigation carried out by the  incumbent,
in consequence of information in his possession,  while  investigating  into
any grievance, allegation against any administrative action.



23.   Section 11 deals with the producing, recording, etc. of  evidence  for
the purpose of investigation under the Act.  Sub-sections  (1)  and  (2)  of
Section 11 read as follows:

      “11. Evidence.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, for the
      purpose of any investigation (including  the  preliminary  inquiry  if
      any, before such investigation) under this Act, the  Lokayukta  or  an
      Upa-lokahukta may require any public servant or any other person  who,
      in his opinion, is able to furnish information  or  produce  documents
      relevant to the investigation  to  furnish  any  such  information  or
      produce any such document.

             (2)  For  the  purpose  of  any  investigation  (including  the
      preliminary inquiry) the Lokayukta or Upa-lokayukta shall have all the
      powers of a Civil Court while trying a suit under  that  the  Code  of
      Civil Procedure Code, 1908, in respect of the following matters only:-

     a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and  examining
        him on oath;




     b) requiring the discovery and production of any document;




     c) receiving evidence on affidavits;




     d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any Court  or
        office;




     e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents;




     f) such other matters as may be prescribed.”







Sub-section (3) of Section 11 provides for applicability of Section  193  of
the Indian Penal Code  (Punishment  for  false  evidence),  for  proceedings
before  the  Lokayukta  or  Upa  Lokayukta,  while  exercising  its   powers
conferred under sub-section (2) of Section 11, and  only  for  that  limited
extent is considered a judicial proceeding.




24.   Section 12 deals with  the  reports  of  Lokayukta  which  essentially
deals with the following aspects:

        i) The Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta can sent a  report  with  certain
           recommendations and findings as envisaged in sub section (1) and
           (3) of Section 12.




       ii) Under sub section (2) of Section 12, the competent authority  is
           required to intimate or cause to intimate the Lokayukta  or  the
           Upa Lokayukta on the action taken  on  the  report  as  provided
           under sub section (1) of Section 12, within 1 month.




      iii) Failure to intimate the action taken  on  the  report  submitted
           under section (1) has not been dealt with specifically,  however
           if in the opinion of  Lokayukta  /  Upa  Lokayukta  satisfactory
           action is not taken by the  competent  authority  under  Section
           12(2), he is at liberty  to  send  a  ‘Special  report’  to  the
           governor as provided for under sub section (5) of Section 12.




       iv) Findings and recommendations to be given by the Lokayukta or Upa-
           lokayukta under sub section 3 of Section 12,  include  those  as
           contemplated under Section 13 of the Act.




        v) Sub-section (4) of Section 12 requires the  competent  authority
           to examine the report forwarded under  sub-section  (3),  within
           three months and intimate the Lokayukta or the Upa Lokayukta  on
           the action taken or proposed to be taken on  the  basis  of  the
           report.




       vi) Failure to intimate the action taken  on  the  report  submitted
           under section (3) has not been dealt with specifically,  however
           if in the opinion of Lokayukta  /  Upa  Lokayukta,  satisfactory
           action taken is not  taken  by  the  competent  authority  under
           Section 12(4), he is at liberty to send a  ‘Special  report’  to
           the governor as provided for under sub section  (5)  of  Section
           12.




      vii) If any Special Report as contemplated under sub-section  (5)  is
           received and the  annual  report  of  the  Lokayukta  under  sub
           section (6), would have to be laid  before  each  house  of  the
           State  legislature  along  with  an  explanatory  note  of   the
           Governor.




     viii) It is important to note that the act neither binds the  Governor
           nor the State  Legislature  to  accept  the  recommendations  or
           findings  of  the   incumbent,   thereby   ensuring   no   civil
           consequences follow from the direct action of the  Lokayukta  or
           Upa Lokayukta.







      Section 13 prescribes when a  public  servant  would  have  to  vacate
office, which reads as follows:

      “13.  Public servant to vacate office if directed  by  Lokayukta  etc.
      (1) Where after investigation into a complaint  the  Lokayukta  or  an
      Upalokayukta is satisfied that the complaint involving  an  allegation
      against the public  servant  is  substantiated  and  that  the  public
      servant concerned should not continue to hold the post  held  by  him,
      the Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta shall make  a  declaration  to  that
      effect in his report under sub-section (3) of section  12.  Where  the
      competent authority is the Governor, State  Government  or  the  Chief
      Minister, it may either accept or reject the  declaration.   In  other
      cases, the competent authority shall send a copy of such report to the
      State Government, which may either accept or reject  the  declaration.
      If it is not rejected within a period of three months from the date of
      receipt of the report, or the copy of the report, as the case may  be,
      it shall be deemed to have been accepted on the  expiry  of  the  said
      period of three months.

      (2) If the declaration so made is accepted or is deemed to  have  been
      accepted, the fact of such acceptance or the deemed  acceptance  shall
      immediately be intimated by Registered post by the Governor, the State
      Government or the Chief Minister if  any  of  them  is  the  competent
      authority  and   the   State   Government   in   other   cases   then,
      notwithstanding anything contained in any  law,  order,  notification,
      rule or contract of appointment, the public servant  concerned  shall,
      with effect from the date of intimation of such acceptance or  of  the
      deemed acceptance of the declaration,

      (i)     if the Chief Minister or a Minister resign his office  of  the
      Chief Minister, or Minister, as the case may be.

      (ii)       If a public servant falling under items (e)  and  (f),  but
      not falling under items (d) and (g) of clause (12) of  section  2,  be
      deemed to have vacated his office: and

      (iii)    If a public servant falling under items (d) and (g) of clause
      (12) of section 2, be deemed to have been placed under  suspension  by
      an order of the appointing authority.

      Provided that if the public servant  is  a  member  of  an  All  India
      Service as defined in section 2 of the All India  Services  Act,  1951
      (Central Act 61 to 1951) the State Government  shall  take  action  to
      keep him under suspension in accordance with the rules or  regulations
      applicable to his service.”




      Section 14 deals with the initiation of  prosecution  which  reads  as
follows:

           “14. Initiation of prosecution.-  If  after  investigation  into
      any complaint the Lokayukta or an Upa-lokayukta is satisfied that  the
      public servant has  committed  any  criminal  offence  and  should  be
      prosecuted in a court of law for such offence, then, he  may  pass  an
      order to that effect and initiate prosecution of  the  public  servant
      concerned and if prior sanction of any authority is required for  such
      prosecution, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any law, such
      sanction shall be deemed to  have  been  granted  by  the  appropriate
      authority on the date of such order.”




Investigative in nature

25.   The provisions discussed above clearly indicate that the functions  to
be discharged by Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta are investigative in nature  and
the report of Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta under sub-sections (1) and  (3)  of
Section 12 and  the  Special  Report  submitted  under  sub-section  (5)  of
Section 12 are only recommendatory.  No civil consequence  as  such  follows
from the action of Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta,  though  they  can  initiate
prosecution before a competent court.  I have extensively  referred  to  the
object and purpose of the Act and explained the various  provisions  of  the
Act only to indicate the nature and functions to be discharged by  Lokayukta
or Upa Lokayukta under the Act.


26.   The Act has, therefore, clearly delineated which are  the  matters  to
be investigated by the Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta.  They have no  authority
to investigate on a complaint  involving  a  grievance  in  respect  of  any
action specified in the Second Schedule of the Act, which are as follows:
   a) Action taken for the purpose of powers investigating  crimes  relating
      to the security of the State.

   b) Action taken in the exercise of  powers  in  relation  to  determining
      whether a matter shall go to a Court or not.




   c) Action taken in matters which arise out of the  terms  of  a  contract
      governing purely  commercial  relations  of  the  administration  with
      customers or suppliers, except where the complaint alleges  harassment
      or gross delay in meeting contractual obligations.

   d) Action taken in respect of appointments,  removals,  pay,  discipline,
      superannuation or other matters relating to conditions of  service  of
      public servants but  not  including  action  relating  to  claims  for
      pension, gratuity, provident fund or to  any  claims  which  arise  on
      retirement, removal or termination of service.

   e) Grant of honours and awards.



27.   Further if the complainant has or had any remedy  by  way  of  appeal,
revision, review or other proceedings before any tribunal, court officer  or
other authority and has not availed of the same, the
Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta shall not conduct any  investigation  under  the
Act, in other words, they have to act within the four corners of the Act.


28.   The Act has also been enacted to make provision for  making  enquiries
by the Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta into the administrative action  relatable
to matters specified in List II or List III of the Seventh Schedule  to  the
Constitution, taken by or on  behalf  of  the  Government  of  Karnataka  or
certain  public  authorities  in  the  State  of  Karnataka,  including  any
omission or commission in connection with or  arising  out  of  such  action
etc.



29.    Lokayukta  or  Upa  Lokayukta  under  the  Act  are  established   to
investigate and report on allegations or grievances relating to the  conduct
of public servants which includes the Chief  Minister;  all  other  Minister
and members of the State Legislature; all officers of the State  Government;
Chairman,  Vice  Chairman  of  Local  Authorities,  Corporations,  owned  or
controlled by the State Government, a company in which not less  than  fifty
one per cent of the shares are  held  by  the  State  Government,  Societies
registered under the Societies Registration Act, Co-operative Societies  and
Universities established by or under any law of the Legislature.


30.   Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta while exercising powers under the Act,  of
course, is acting as  a  quasi  judicial  authority  but  it  functions  are
investigative in nature.  The Constitution Bench of this Court  in  Nagendra
Nath Bora and another v.  Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals,  Assam
and others AIR 1958 SC 398 held whether or not  an  administrative  body  or
authority functions as purely administrative  one  or  in  a  quasi-judicial
capacity, must be  determined  in  each  case,  on  an  examination  of  the
relevant  statute  and  rules  framed  thereunder.   This  Court  in  Indian
National Congress (I) v. Institute of social Welfare  and  others  (2002)  5
SCC 685, while dealing with the powers of the Election Commission  of  India
under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 held that while  exercising
power under Section 29-A, the Commission acts  quasi-judicially  and  passes
quasi judicial orders.

31.   The Court held that what distinguishes an administrative  act  from  a
quasi-judicial act is, in the case of quasi-judicial  functions,  under  the
relevant law, the statutory authority is required  to  act  judicially.   In
other words, where law requires that  an  authority  before  arriving  at  a
decision must  make  an  enquiry,  such  a  requirement  of  law  makes  the
authority a quasi-judicial authority.  Noticing the above  legal  principles
this Court held in view of the requirement of law that the Commission is  to
give decision only after  making  an  enquiry,  wherein  an  opportunity  of
hearing is to be given to the representative of  the  political  party,  the
Election Commission is is required to act judicially.

32.   Recently, in Automotive Tyre Manufactures  Association  v.  Designated
Authority and others (2011) 2 SCC 258,  this  Court  examined  the  question
whether the Designated Authority appointed by the Central  Government  under
Rule 3 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and  Collection  of
Anti-Dumping Duty on  dumped  Articles  and  for  Determination  of  Injury)
Rules, 1995 (1995 Rules) for conducting investigation, for  the  purpose  of
levy of anti dumping duty in terms of Section 9-A of the Customs Act,  1962,
is functioning as an administrative or quasi judicial authority.  The  Court
after examining the scheme of the Tariff Act read with 1995  Rules  and  the
nature of functions to be discharged by the Designated  Authority  took  the
view that the authority exercising quasi-judicial functions is bound to  act
judicially.  Court noticed that  the  Designated  Authority  determines  the
rights and obligations of the “interested  parties”  by  applying  objective
standards  based  on  the  material/information/evidence  presented  by  the
exporters, foreign producers and other “interested parties” by applying  the
procedure and principles laid down in the 1995 Rules.


33.   Provisions of Sections 9, 10 and 11 clearly  indicate  that  Lokayukta
and Upa Lokayukta are discharging quasi-judicial functions while  conducting
the investigation under the Act.  Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of  the  Act
also states that for the  purpose  any  such  investigation,  including  the
preliminary inquiry Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta shall have  all  the  powers
of a Civil Court while trying a suit under  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure,
1908, in the matter of summoning and enforcing the attendance of any  person
and examining him on oath.  Further they have also the power  for  requiring
the  discovery  and  production  of  any  document,  receiving  evidence  on
affidavits, requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any  court
or office, issuing commissions for examination  of  witnesses  of  documents
etc.   Further,  sub-section  (3)  of  Section  11   stipulates   that   any
proceedings before the Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta shall be deemed to  be  a
judicial proceeding within the meaning of Section 193 of  the  Indian  Penal
Code.  Therefore, Lokayukta  and  Upa  Lokayukta,  while  investigating  the
matters are discharging  quasi-judicial  functions,  though  the  nature  of
functions is investigative.


Consequence of the report

34.   The Governor of the State, acting in his discretion,  if  accepts  the
report of the Lokayukta against the Chief Minister, then he  has  to  resign
from the post.  So also,  if  the  Chief  Minister  accepts  such  a  report
against a Minister, then he has to resign from the post.  Lokayukta  or  Upa
Lokayukta, however, has no jurisdiction or power to direct the  Governor  or
the Chief Minister to implement its report or direct  resignation  from  the
Office they hold, which depends upon the question whether  the  Governor  or
the Chief Minister, as the case may be, accepts  the  report  or  not.   But
when the  Lokayukta  or  Upa  Lokayukta,  if  after  the  investigation,  is
satisfied that the  public  servant  has  committed  any  criminal  offence,
prosecution can be initiated, for which  prior  sanction  of  any  authority
required under any law for such prosecution, shall also be  deemed  to  have
been granted.



Nature of Appointment

35.   We are, in this case, as already indicated, called upon to decide  the
nature and the procedure to be followed in  the  matter  of  appointment  of
Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta under  the  Act  for  which  I  have  elaborately
discussed the intention of the legislature, objects and purpose of  the  Act
and  the  nature  and  functions  to  be  discharged  by  Lokayukta  or  Upa
Lokayukta, its investigative nature, the  consequence  of  its  report  etc.
Section 3 of the Act  deals  with  the  appointment  of  Lokayukta  and  Upa
Lokayukta, which reads as follows:


      3.    Appointment of Lokayukta and Upa-lokayukta-


                (1)  For  the  purpose  of  conducting  investigations   and
      enquiries in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the  Governor
      shall appoint a person to be known as the Lokayukta and  one  or  more
      persons to be known as the Upa-lokayukta or Upa-lokayuktas.


                (2)(a) A person to be appointed as the Lokayukta shall be  a
      person who has held the office of a Judge of the Supreme Court or that
      of the Chief Justice of a High Court and shall  be  appointed  on  the
      advice tendered by the Chief Minister in consultation with  the  Chief
      Justice of the  High  Court  of  Karnataka,  the  Chairman,  Karnataka
      Legislative Council, the Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly,  the
      Leader of the Opposition in the Karnataka Legislative Council and  the
      Leader of the Opposition in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly.


                (b) A person to be appointed as an Upa-lokayukta shall be  a
      person who has held the office of the Judge of a High Court and  shall
      be  appointed  on  the  advice  tendered  by  the  Chief  Minister  in
      consultation with the Chief Justice of the High  Court  of  Karnataka,
      the Chairman, Karnataka Legislative Council,  the  Speaker,  Karnataka
      Legislative Assembly, the Leader of the opposition  in  the  Karnataka
      Legislative Council and the Leader of the opposition in the  Karnataka
      Legislative Assembly.


               (3) A person appointed as the Lokayukta or  an  Upa-lokayukta
      shall, before entering upon his office, make and subscribe before  the
      Governor, or some person appointed in that behalf of him, an  oath  or
      affirmation in  the  form  set  out  for  the  purpose  in  the  First
      Schedule."



36.   The purpose of appointment of Lokayukta or Upa  Lokayukta  is  clearly
spelt out in Section 3(1) of the Act which indicates  that  it  is  for  the
purpose of conducting investigation and enquiries  in  accordance  with  the
provisions of the Act.  The procedure  to  conduct  investigation  has  been
elaborately dealt with  in  the  Act.   The  scope  of  enquiry  is  however
limited, compared to the investigation that is only to the ascertainment  of
the truth or falsehood of the allegations.  The power has been entrusted  by
the Act on the Governor to appoint a person to be  known  as  Lokayukta  and
one or more persons to be known as Upa Lokayukta and  Upa  Lokayuktas.   The
person to be appointed as Lokayukta shall be  a  person  who  has  held  the
office of a Judge of the Supreme  Court  of  India  or  that  of  the  Chief
Justice of the High  Court.   The  Governor,  as  per  Section  3(2)(a),  is
empowered  to  appoint  Lokayukta  on  the  advice  tendered  by  the  Chief
Minister, in consultation with the  Chief  Justice  of  the  High  Court  of
Karnataka,  the  Chairman,  Karnataka  Legislative  Council,  the   Speaker,
Karnataka  Legislative  Assembly,  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  in  the
Karnataka Legislative Council and  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  in  the
Karnataka Legislative Assembly.  It is, therefore, clear that all the  above
five dignitaries have to be consulted before tendering advice by  the  Chief
Minister to the Governor of the State.



37.   Section 3(2)(b) of  the  Act  stipulates  that,  so  far  as  the  Upa
Lokayukta is concerned, he shall be a person who has held the  office  of  a
Judge of the High Court and shall be appointed on  the  advice  tendered  by
the  Chief  Minister.   The  Chief  Minister  has  to   consult   the   five
dignitaries,  the  Chief  Justice  of  the  High  Court  of  Karnataka,  the
Chairman, Karnataka Legislative Council, the Speaker, Karnataka  Legislative
Assembly, the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative  Council  and  the
Leader of Opposition in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly.  Therefore,  for
the purpose of appointment of  Lokayukta  or  Upa  Lokayukta  all  the  five
consultees are common.  The appointment has to be made by  the  Governor  on
the advice tendered by the Chief Minister in consultation  with  those  five
dignitaries.



Legislations in few other States.-



38.   Legislatures in various States have laid  down  different  methods  of
appointment and eligibility criterias for filling up the post  of  Lokayukta
and Upa-Lokayuktas, a comparison of which would help us  to  understand  the
intention of the legislature and the method of appointment envisaged.


39.   ANDHRA PRADESH LOKAYUKTA ACT, 1983


      Section 3 – Appointment of Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta:  (1)  For  the
      purpose of conducting investigation in accordance with the  provisions
      of this Act, the Governor shall, by warrant under his hand  and  seal,
      appoint a person to be known as the Lokayukta and one or more  persons
      to be known as the Upa-Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayuktas:

      Provided that,-

           (a) the person to be appointed as the Lokayukta shall be a Judge
           or a retired Chief Justice of a High Court;

           (b) the Lokayukta shall be appointed after consultation with the
           Chief Justice of the High Court concerned;

           (c) the Upa-Lokayukta shall be appointed from among the District
           Judges of Grade I, out of a panel of five names forwarded by the
           Chief Justice of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.




      (2) In the Andhra Pradesh  Lokayukta  and  Upa  –Lokayukta  Act,  1983
      (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act) for sub-section (2)  of
      Section 3, the following shall be substituted, namely:-

            (i) Every person appointed to be the  Lokayukta  shall,  before
           entering  upon  his  office,  make  and  subscribe,  before  the
           Governor an oath or affirmation according to the  form  set  out
           for the purpose in the First Schedule.




           (ii) Every person  appointed  to  be  the  Upa-Lokayukta  shall,
           before entering upon his office, make and subscribe  before  the
           Governor or some person appointed in that behalf by him, an oath
           or affirmation according to the form setout for the  purpose  in
           the First Schedule.




      (3) The Upa-Lokayukta shall function under the administrative  control
      of the Lokayukta and in particular,  for  the  purpose  of  convenient
      disposal of investigations under this Act,  the  Lokayukta  may  issue
      such general or special directions, as he may consider  necessary,  to
      the Upa-Lokayukta:

           Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be construed  to
      authorize  the  Lokayukta  to  question  any  decision,  finding,   or
      recommendation of the Upa-Lokayukta.




40.   ASSAM LOKAYUKTA AND UPA-LOKAYUKTAS ACT, 1985



      Section 3 – Appointment of Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas.- 1.  For  the
      purpose of conducting investigations in accordance with the provisions
      of the Act, the Governor shall, by warrant under his  hand  and  seal,
      appoint a person to be known as Lokayukta and one or more  persons  to
      be known as Upa-Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayuktas:




           Provided that:-

           (a)  The Lokayukta shall be appointed  after  consultation  with
           the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court, the Speaker and the
           leader of the opposition in the Assam Legislative  Assembly  and
           if there be no such leader a person elected in  this  behalf  by
           the members of the opposition in that house in  such  manner  as
           the speaker may direct;

           (b) The Upa-Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayuktas shall be appointed after
           consultation with the Lokayukta




                Provided further that where the Speaker of the  Legislative
                Assembly is satisfied that circumstances exists on  account
                of which it is not practicable to consult the leader of the
                opposition  in  accordance  with  Cl(a)  of  the  preceding
                proviso he may intimate the Governor the name of any  other
                member or the opposition in the  Legislative  Assembly  who
                may be consulted under that clause instead of the leader of
                the opposition.




      (2) Every person appointed as the  Lokayukta  or  Upa-Lokayukta  shall
      before entering  upon  his  office,  make  and  subscribe  before  the
      Governor or some person appointed in that behalf by him,  an  oath  or
      affirmation in the form set out for the purpose in the First Schedule.




      (3) The Upa-Lokayuktas shall be subject to the administrative  control
      of the Lokayukta and, in particular, for  the  purpose  of  convenient
      disposal of investigations under this Act,  the  Lokayukta  may  issue
      such general or special direction, as he may consider necessary to the
      Upa-Lokayukta

           Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be construed  to
      authorize  the  Lokayukta  to  question  any  finding,  conclusion  or
      recommendation of an Upa Lokayukta.



41.   THE BIHAR LOKAYUKTA ACT, 1973:



      3. Appointment of  Lokayukta.-  (1)  For  the  purpose  of  conduction
      investigations in accordance with  the  provisions  of  this  Act  the
      Governor shall by warrant under his hand and shall appoint a person to
      be known as the Lokayukta of Bihar;

           Provided  that  the   Lokayukta   shall   be   appointed   after
      consultation with the Chief Justice of the Patna High  Court  and  the
      Opposition in the State Legislative Assembly or if there  be  no  such
      leader a person elected in this behalf by the Opposition in the  State
      Legislative Assembly in such manner as the Speaker may direct.

           (2) The person appointed as the Lokayukta shall, before entering
      upon his office, make and subscribe,  before  the  Governor,  or  some
      person  appointed  in  that  behalf  by  the  Governor,  an  oath   or
      affirmation in the  form  set  out  for  the  purposes  in  the  First
      Schedule.



42.   CHHATTISGARH LOK AAYOG ADHYADESH, 2002



      3. Constitution of Lok Aayog:- (1) There shall be a Lok Aayog for  the
      purpose of conducting inquiries in accordance with the  provisions  of
      this Ordinance.

           (2) The Lok Aayog shall consist of two members, one to be  known
      as the Pramukh Lokayukt, and the other as the Lokayukt.

           (3) The Pramukh Lokayukt shall be a person who has been a  Judge
      of a High Court or has held a judicial officer higher than that  of  a
      Judge of a High Court.

           (4)  The  Lokayukta  shall  be  a  person  with  experience   in
      administrative and quasi-judicial matters, and shall  have  functioned
      at the level of a Secretary to the Government of India  or  the  Chief
      Secretary to any State Government in India.

           Provided that the Pramukh Lokayukta  shall  have  administrative
      control over the affairs of the Lok Aayog.

           (5) Governor shall, by warrant under his hand and seal,  appoint
      the Pramukh Lokayukta and the Lokayukta, on the advice  of  the  Chief
      Minister who shall consult the Chief Justice  of  the  High  Court  of
      Chattisgarh and the Speaker of the Chattisgarh Legislative Assembly.

           (6) Every person appointed as a Pramukh Lokayukt or a L Lokayukt
      shall, before entering upon his office, take and subscribe before  the
      Governor, or some person appointed in that behalf by him, an  oath  of
      affirmation in the form set out for the purpose in the First Schedule.

           (7) The Pramukh Lokayukt or the  Lokayukt  shall  not  hold  any
      other office of trust or profit or be  connected  with  any  political
      party or carry on any business or practice any profession or hold  any
      post in any society, including any cooperative society, trust, or  any
      local authority, or membership of  the  Legislative  Assembly  of  any
      State or of the Parliament.




43.   DELHI LOKAYUKTA AND UPLOKAYUKTA ACT, 1995:

      Section 3 – Appointment of Lokayukta and  Uplokayukta.-  (1)  For  the
      purpose of conducting investigations and inquiries in accordance  with
      the provisions of this Act, the Lieutenant Governor  shall,  with  the
      prior approval of the President, appoint a person to be known  as  the
      Lokayukta and one or more persons to be known as Upalokayukta;

           Provided that-

           (a) the Lokayukta shall be appointed after consultation with the
           Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi and the Leader  of  the
           Opposition in the Legislative Assembly and if there be  no  such
           leader, a person selected in this behalf by the Members  of  the
           Opposition in that House in  such  manner  as  the  Speaker  may
           direct;

           (b) the Upalokayukta shall be appointed in consultation with the
           Lokayukta.




           2)  A person shall not be qualified for appointment as-

           (a) the Lokayukta, unless he is or has been Chief Justice of any
           High Court in India, or a Judge of a High Court for seven years;

           (b) an Upalokayukta, unless he is or has been a Secretary to the
           Government or a District Judge in Delhi for seven years  or  has
           held the post of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India.

           3. Every person appointed as Lokayukta  or  Upalokayukta  shall,
      before entering  upon  his  office,  make  and  subscribe  before  the
      Lieutenant Governor or some person appointed in that behalf by him, an
      oath or affirmation in the form set out for the purpose in  the  First
      Schedule.

           4. The Upalokayukta  shall  be  subject  to  the  administrative
      control of the  Lokayukta  and  in  particular,  for  the  purpose  of
      convenient disposal of investigations under this  Act,  the  Lokayukta
      may issue such general  or  special  directions  as  he  may  consider
      necessary to the Upalokayukta and may  withdraw  to  himself  or  may,
      subject to the provisions of  Section  7,  make  over  any  case  from
      himself to  an  Upalokayukta  or  from  one  Upalokayukta  to  another
      Upalokayukta for disposal

           Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be construed  to
      authorize  the  Lokayukta  to  question   any   finding,   conclusion,
      recommendation of an Upalokayukta.




44.   GUJARAT LOKAYUKTA ACT, 1986

      Section  3  –  Appointment  of  Lokayukta-   1)  For  the  purpose  of
      conducting investigations in accordance with the  provisions  of  this
      Act, the Governor shall by warrant under his hand and seal  appoint  a
      person to be known as the Lokayukta;

                 Provided  that  the  Lokayukta  shall  be  appointed  after
           consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court and except
           where such appointment  is  to  be  made  at  a  time  when  the
           Legislative Assembly of the State of Gujarat has been  dissolved
           or a Proclamation under Article 356 of the  Constitution  is  in
           operation in the State of Gujarat, after consultation also  with
           the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly  or  if
           there be no such Leader a person elected in this behalf  by  the
           members of Opposition in that house in the manner as the Speaker
           may direct.

      (2) A person shall not be qualified for  appointment  as  a  Lokayukta
      unless he is or has been a Judge of the High Court.

      (3) Every person appointed as the  Lokayukta  shall,  before  entering
      upon his office, make and subscribe before the Governor or some person
      appointed in that behalf by him an oath or affirmation in the form set
      out for the purpose in the First Schedule.



45.   THE JHARKHAND LOKAYUKTA ACT, 2001


           3. Appointment of Lokayukta- (1) For the purpose  of  conduction
      investigations in accordance with the  provisions  of  this  Act,  the
      Governor shall by warrant under his hand and seal appoint a person  to
      be known as the Lokayukta of Jharkhand;

           Provided  that  the   Lokayukta   shall   be   appointed   after
      consultation with the Chief  Justice  of  the  Jharkhand  High  Court,
      Ranchi and the Leader of  the  Opposition  in  the  State  Legislative
      Assembly or if there be no such leader a person elected in this behalf
      by the Members of the Opposition in the State Legislative Assembly  in
      such manner as the Speaker may direct.

      (2) The person appointed as the Lokayukta shall, before entering  upon
      his office, make and subscribe, before the Governor,  or  some  person
      appointed in that behalf by the Governor, an oath  or  affirmation  in
      the form set out for the purposes in the First Schedule.




46.   HARYANA LOKAYUKTA ACT, 2002:

           Section 3 – Appointment of Lokayukta- (1)  For  the  purpose  of
      conducting investigations in accordance with the  provisions  of  this
      Act, the Governor, shall, by warrant, under his hand and seal, appoint
      a person to be known as the Lokayukta:

           Provided that the Lokayukta shall be appointed on the advice  of
           the Chief Minister who shall  consult  the  Speaker  of  Haryana
           Legislative Assembly, Leader of Opposition and the Chief Justice
           of India in case of appointment of a person who is or has been a
           Judge of the Supreme Court or Chief Justice of the  High  Court,
           and Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court  in  case
           of appointment of a person who is or has been a Judge of a  High
           Court.

           Provided further that the  result  of  consultation  shall  have
           persuasive value but not binding on the Chief Minister.

      (2) A notification by the  State  Government  about  the  consultation
      having been held as envisaged in sub-section (1) shall  be  conclusive
      proof thereof.

      (3) Every person appointed as the  Lokayukta  shall,  before  entering
      upon his office, make and subscribe,  before  the  Governor,  or  some
      person appointed in that behalf by him, an oath of affirmation in  the
      form set out for the purpose in the Schedule.




47.   KERALA LOK AYUKTA ACT, 1999

           Section 3 – Appointment of Lok Ayukta and Upa-Lok  Ayuktas-   1)
      For  the  purpose  of  conducting  investigations  and  inquiries   in
      accordance with the provisions of this Act, the Governor shall appoint
      a person to be known as Lok Ayukta and two other persons to  be  known
      as Upa-Lok Ayuktas.

           (2) A person to be appointed as Lok Ayukta shall be a person who
      has held the office of a Judge of the Supreme Court  or  that  of  the
      Chief Justice of a High Court and shall be  appointed  on  the  advice
      tendered by the Chief Minister, in consultation with  the  Speaker  of
      the Legislative Assembly of the State and the Leader of Opposition  in
      the Legislative Assembly of the State.

           (3) A person to be appointed as an Upa-Lok  Ayukta  shall  be  a
      person who holds or has held the office of a Judge of a High Court and
      shall be appointed on the advice tendered by  the  Chief  Minister  in
      consultation with the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the state
      and the leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly of the state.

           Provided that the Chief Justice  of  the  High  Court  concerned
           shall be consulted, if a sitting judge is appointed as  an  Upa-
           Lok Ayukta.

      (4) A person appointed as Lok Ayukta or Upa-Lok Ayukta  shall,  before
      entering upon his office, make and subscribe, before the Governor or a
      person appointed by him in that behalf, an oath or affirmation in  the
      form set out for the purpose in the First Schedule.”

48.   A brief survey of the  above  statutory  provisions  would  show  that
State Legislatures of various  States  have  adopted  different  eligibility
criteria, method of selection, consultative procedures etc.  in  the  matter
of appointment of Lokayukta, Upa-Lokayukta in their respective States.   For
instance, in Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta Act the Chief Minister as such has  no
role and the only consultee for the post of Lokayukta is the Chief  Justice.
 Upa Lokayukta is appointed not from the category  of  Judges  of  the  High
Court, sitting or former, but from a panel of five names of District  Judges
of Grade I forwarded by the Chief Justice.  Further in the States of  Assam,
Delhi, Gujarat, etc., the Chief Ministers have no role  as  such.   However,
in the States of Chattisgarh, Haryana etc., the  Governor  appoints  on  the
advice of the Chief Minister.  In the State of Chhattisgarh  the  Act  says,
the Pramukh Lokayukta shall be a person who has  been  a  judge  of  a  High
Court or has held a judicial office higher than that of a High Court  Judge.
 Lokayukta shall  be  a  person  who  has  functioned  at  the  level  of  a
Secretary, both Government of India or the  Chief  Secretary  to  any  State
Government.  The Chief Justice of the High Court  is  a  consultee,  in  the
Lokayukta Act  of  Assam,  Bihar,  Delhi,  Gujarat,  Jharkhand  and  so  on.
However, in the Kerala Lokayukta Act, the Chief Justice is not  a  consultee
at all.  In few  States,  Upa-lokayuktas  are  appointed  from  a  panel  of
District  Judges,  not  from  the  High  Court  Judges  sitting  or  former.
Legislatures of the  various  States,  in  their  wisdom,  have,  therefore,
adopted different sources,  eligibility  criteria,  methods  of  appointment
etc.  in  the  matter  of  appointment  of  Lokayukta  and   Upa-Lokayuktas.
Recently, this Court had an occasion to consider the scope of  Section  3(1)
of the Gujarat Lokayukta Act, 1986  in  State  of  Gujarat  v.  Hon’ble  Mr.
Justice R.A. Mehta (Retd.) reported in   2013  (1)  SCALE  7.   Interpreting
that provision this Court held that the views  of  the  Chief  Justice  have
primacy in the matter of appointment of Lokayukta in the State  of  Gujarat.
Every Statute has, therefore, to be construed in the context of  the  scheme
of the Statute as a whole, consideration of context,  it  is  trite,  is  to
give meaning to the legislative intention according to the  terms  in  which
it has been expressed.



49.   Constitution  of  India  and  its  articles,  judicial  pronouncements
interpreting various articles of the  Constitution  confer  primacy  to  the
views of Chief Justice of India or to the Chief Justice of a High  Court  in
the matter of appointment to certain posts the incumbents of which  have  to
discharge judicial or quasi judicial functions.



APPOINTMENT TO THE POSTS OF DISTRICT JUDGE/HIGH COURT JUDGES:



50.   The views of the High Court has primacy in the matter  of  appointment
of District Judges. Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P. 1967 (1)  SCR  77  was  a
case relating to the appointment of District Judges wherein this  Court  had
occasion to consider the scope of  Articles  233-236  of  the  Constitution.
Interpreting the word “consultation” in Article 233, this  Court  has  taken
the view that the exercise of  power  of  appointment  by  the  Governor  is
conditioned by his consultation with the High  Court,  meaning  thereby  the
Governor can only appoint  a  person  to  the  post  of  District  Judge  in
consultation with the High Court.  The purpose and  object  of  consultation
is that the High  Court  is  expected  to  know  better  in  regard  to  the
suitability or otherwise of a  person,  belonging  either  to  the  judicial
service or to the Bar, to be appointed as  a  district  Judge.   The  duties
enjoined on  the  Governor  are,  therefore,  to  make  the  appointment  in
consultation with the body  which  is  the  appropriate  authority  to  give
advice to him.  In Chandramouleshwar Prasad v. Patna  High  Court  (1969)  3
SCC 56, Justice Mitter J. while interpreting the Article 233 held “that  the
High Court is the body which is intimately familiar with the efficiency  and
quality of officers who are fit to be promoted as District Judges.   It  was
held that consultation with the High Court  under  Article  233  is  not  an
empty  formality.   Further,  it  was  also  stated  that  consultation   or
deliberation is not complete or effective before the  parties  thereto  make
their respective points of view known to the other others  and  discuss  and
examine the relative merits of their views”.



51.   In Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab and  another  (1974)  2  SCC  831,
Justice  Krishna  Iyer,  in  his  concurring  judgment,    highlighted   the
independence of Judiciary and held  “it  is  a  cardinal  principle  of  the
Constitution and has been relied on to justify the deviation, is guarded  by
the relevant article making consultation with the  Chief  Justice  of  India
obligatory”.  In Union  of India v. Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth  and  another
(1977) 4 SCC 193 this Court high-lighted  the  rationale  behind  consulting
the Chief Justice of India on matters pertaining to judiciary, in the  light
of Article 222  of  the  Constitution  of  India.    This  Court  held  that
“Article 222(1) requires the President  to  consult  the  Chief  Justice  of
India on the  premises  that  in  a  matter  which  concerns  the  judiciary
vitally, no decision ought to be taken by the  executive  without  obtaining
the views of the Chief Justice of India who, by training and experience,  is
in the best position to  consider  the  situation  fairly,  competently  and
objectively”.



52.   In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and others  v.  Union
of India (1993) 4  SCC  441  while  interpreting  the  Article  217  of  the
Constitution, i.e. in the matter of appointment  of  Judges  to  the  Higher
Judiciary, it was held that the opinion of the Chief Justice  of  India  has
got primacy in the process of consultation.  Primacy of the opinion  of  the
Chief Justice of India is, in effect, the primacy  of  the  opinion  of  the
Chief Justice of India formed  collectively,  that  is,  after  taking  into
account the views of his senior colleagues who are required to be  consulted
by him for the formation of the opinion.  The Court has  also  proceeded  on
the premises that the President is constitutionally obliged to  consult  the
Chief Justice of India in the case of appointment of Judges of  the  Supreme
Court of India, as per the proviso to Article 124(2)  and  in  the  case  of
appointment of the Judges of the High Court  the  President  is  obliged  to
consult the Chief Justice  of  India  and  the  Governor  of  the  State  in
addition to the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned.   In  the  matter
of appointment of Judges of the Supreme Court  as  well  as  that  the  High
Courts, the opinion of the collegium of  the  Supreme  Court  of  India  has
primacy.  Judgments referred to  above  are  primarily  concerned  with  the
appointment of District Judges in  the  subordinate  judiciary,  High  Court
Judges and the Supreme Court.  Primacy to the  executive  is  negatived,  in
view of the nature of functions to be discharged by them  and  to  make  the
judiciary independent of the executive.

APPOINTMENT TO THE CENTRAL AND STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS



53.   Central  Administrative  Tribunal  as  a  Tribunal  constituted  under
Article 323-A  of  the  Constitution  and  is  expected  to  have  the  same
jurisdiction as that of  the  High  Court.   Such  Tribunal  exercises  vast
judicial  powers  and  the  members  must  be  ensured   absolute   judicial
independence, free from any executive or political interference. It  is  for
this reason, sub-section (7) to Section 6 of  the  Administrative  Tribunals
Act, 1985 requires that the appointment of a member of the  Tribunal  cannot
be made “except  after  consultation  with  the  Chief  Justice  of  India”.
Considering the nature of functions to be discharged by the  Tribunal  which
is judicial, the views of the Chief Justice of India has primacy.  In  Union
of India and others v. Kali Dass Batish and another  (2006) 1 SCC  779  this
Court has interpreted the expression  “after  consultation  with  the  Chief
Justice of India”  as  appearing  in  Section  6(7)  of  the  Administrative
Tribunal Act, 1985 and held that the judicial powers are being exercised  by
the Tribunal and hence the views of the Chief  Justice  of  India  be  given
primacy  in  the  matter  of  appointment  in  the  Central   Administrative
Tribunal.  Similar is the situation with regard to the State  Administrative
Tribunals as well, where the views of the Chief Justice of  the  High  Court
has  primacy,  since  the  Tribunal  is  exercising  judicial   powers   and
performing judicial functions.


APPOINTMENT TO THE NATIONAL AND STATE CONSUMER REDRESSAL COMMISIONS:



54.   This Court in Ashish Handa, Advocate v. Hon’ble the Chief  Justice  of
High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others (1996) 3 SCC 145,  held  in  the
matter of  appointment  of  President  of  the  State  Commissions  and  the
National  Commissions  under  the  Consumer  Protection   Act,   1986,   the
consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court and Chief  Justice  of
India is in the same manner, as indicated by the Supreme  Court  in  Supreme
Court Advocates-on-Record Association case (supra) for appointment  of  High
Court and Supreme Court Judges.   This  Court  noticed  that  the  functions
discharged by the Commission are  primarily  the  adjudication  of  consumer
disputes and, therefore, a person from the judicial branch is considered  to
be suitable for  the  office  of  the  President.   The  Court  noticed  the
requirement of consultation with the Chief  Justice  under  the  proviso  to
Section 16(1)(a) and Section 20(1)(a) of the  Consumer  Protection  Act,  is
similar to that in Article 217.  Consequently, it was  held  that  principle
enunciated in the majority opinion in the Supreme Court  Advocates-on-Record
Association case (supra) must apply even for  initiating  the  proposal  for
appointment.



55.   This Court, however, in Ashok Tanwar and another v. State of H.P.  and
others (2005) 2  SCC  104,  relying  on  Supreme  Court  Advocates-on-Record
Association case (supra) disagreed with Ashish Handa  only  to  the  limited
extent  that  for  the  purpose  of  the  Consumer  Protection   Act,   1986
‘consultation’ would not be with the collegium, but  would  rest  only  with
the Chief Justice.  In N. Kannadasan v. Ajoy Khose and others (2009)  7  SCC
1, this Court held that primacy must  be  with  the  opinion  of  the  Chief
Justice inter alia because the appointment is to  a  judicial  post  and  in
view of the peremptory language employed in the proviso to Section  16(1)(a)
of the Consumer Protection  Act,  1986.   This  Court  held  that  the  word
“consultation” may mean differently in  different  situations  depending  on
the nature and purpose of the Statute.



56.   Judgments discussed above would  indicate  that  the  consultation  is
held to be mandatory if the incumbent to be appointed to the post is  either
a sitting or a retired judge who has to  discharge  judicial  functions  and
the orders rendered by them are capable of execution.  Consultation, it  may
be noted, is never meant to be a formality,  but  meaningful  and  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.



57.   The High Court, in the instant case has, placed considerable  reliance
on the Judgment of this Court in K.P. Mohapatra (supra) and  took  the  view
that consultation with the Chief Justice is mandatory and his  opinion  will
have primacy.  Above Judgment has  been  rendered  in  the  context  of  the
appointment of Orissa Lokpal under  Section  3  of  the  Orissa  Lokpal  and
Lokayuktas Act.  The proviso to Section  3(1)  of  the  Act  says  that  the
Lokpal shall be appointed on the advice of the Chief  Justice  of  the  High
Court of Orissa  and  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition,  if  there  is  any.
Consultation with the Chief  Justice  assumes  importance  in  view  of  the
proviso.  The Leader of the Opposition need be consulted, if there  is  one.
In the absence of the Leader of  the  Opposition,  only  the  Chief  Justice
remains as the sole consultee.  In that context and in view of the  specific
statutory provision, it has been held that the consultation with  the  Chief
Justice assumes importance and his views has primacy.



58.   In that case, the Chief Justice approved the  candidature  of  Justice
K.P. Mahapatra, but the Leader of the Opposition later  recommended  another
person, but the State Government appointed the former  but  the  High  Court
interfered with that  appointment.   Reversing  the  judgment  of  the  High
Court, this Court held that the  opinion  rendered  by  the  Leader  of  the
Opposition is not binding on the State Government.



59.   I am of the view that the judgment of this Court in  K.  P.  Mahapatra
(supra) is inapplicable while construing the  provisions  of  the  Karnataka
Lokayukta Act, 1984, since the language employed in that Act and  Section  3
of the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 1985 are not pari materia.



60.   We have, therefore, to interpret the  provisions  of  Section  3(2)(a)
and (b) as it stands in the Karnataka  Lokayukta  Act,  where  the  language
employed, in my view, is clear and unambiguous and  we  have  to  apply  the
golden rule of interpretation i.e. the literal interpretation which  clearly
expresses the intention of the legislature which I have  already  indicated,
supports the objects and reasons, the preamble, as  well  as  various  other
related provisions of the Act.



61.   Tindal, C.J., as early as 1844, has said that “If  the  words  of  the
statute are in themselves precise and  unambiguous,  then  no  more  can  be
necessary than to expound those words in their natural and  ordinary  sense.
The words themselves do alone in such case best declare the  intent  of  the
lawgiver”.  In other words, when the language is plain and  unambiguous  and
admits of only one meaning no question of construction of a statute  arises,
for the Act  speaks  for  itself.   Viscount  Simonds,  L.C.  in  Empror  v.
Benoarilal Sarma AIR 1945 PC 48 has said “in  construing  enacted  words  we
are not concerned with the policy involved or with  the  results,  injurious
or otherwise, which may follow from giving effect  to  the  language  used”.
Blackstone, in Commentaries on the Laws of England, Vol.1 page 59  has  said
“the most fair  and  rational  method  for  interpreting  a  statute  is  by
exploring the intention of the Legislature  through  the  most  natural  and
probable signs which are either the words, the context, the  subject-matter,
the effects and consequence, or the spirit  and  reasons  of  the  law.   In
Kanailal  Sur  v.  Paramnidhi  Sadhu  Khan  AIR   1957   SC   907,   Justice
Gajendragadkar  stated  that,  “if  the  words  used  are  capable  of   one
construction only then it would not be open  to  the  courts  to  adopt  any
other hypothetical construction on the  ground  that  such  construction  is
more consistent with the alleged object and  policy  of  the  Act”.   It  is
unnecessary to multiply that principle with decided cases, as the first  and
primary rule of construction is that the intention of the  Legislature  must
be found in the words used by the Legislature itself.

62.   Section 3(2)(a) and (b) when read literally  and  contextually  admits
of not doubt that the Governor of the State can  appoint  Lokayukta  or  Upa
Lokayukta only on the advice tendered by the Chief  Minister  and  that  the
Chief Justice of the High Court is only one of the consultees and his  views
have no primacy.  The Governor, as per the statute, can appoint only on  the
advice tendered by the Chief Minister and not on the  opinion  expressed  by
the Chief Justice or any of the consultees.



Consultation



63.   The Chief Minister is legally obliged to consult the Chief Justice  of
the High Court and other four consultees, which is a mandatory  requirement.
 The consultation must be meaningful and effective and  mere  eliciting  the
views or calling for recommendations  would  not  suffice.   Consultees  can
suggest various names from the source stipulated in the  statute  and  those
names have to be discussed either in a meeting to be convened by  the  Chief
Minister of the State for that purpose or by way of circulation.  The  Chief
Minister, if proposes to suggest or advise any name  from  the  source  ear-
marked in the statute that must also be made available to the consultees  so
that they can also express their views on the name  or  names  suggested  by
the Chief Minister.    Consultees can express their honest and free  opinion
about the names suggested  by  the  other  consultees  including  the  Chief
Justice  or  the  Chief  Minister.   After  due  deliberations  and   making
meaningful consultation, the Chief Minister of the State is free  to  advise
a name which has come up for  consideration  among  the  consultees  to  the
Governor of the State.  The advice tendered by the Chief Minister will  have
primacy and not that of the consultees including the Chief  Justice  of  the
High Court.



64.   I may point out that the source from  which  a  candidate  has  to  be
advised consists of former judges of the Supreme Court or Chief Justices  of
the State High Courts for the post of Lokayukta and  former  judges  of  the
High Courts for the post of  Upa  Lokayukta.   Persons,  who  fall  in  that
source, have earlier held  constitutional  posts  and  are  presumed  to  be
persons of high integrity, honesty and  ability  and  choosing  a  candidate
from that  source  itself  is  sometimes  difficult.   The  Governor  cannot
appoint a person who does not fall in that source and  satisfies  the  other
eligibility criteria.  Contention was raised that since the source  consists
of persons who have held the office of the Judge of  the  Supreme  Court  or
the Chief Justice of the High Court, the Chief Justice  of  the  High  Court
would be in a better position to compare the merits and  demerits  of  those
candidates.  I find it difficult to accept that contention.   Apart  from  a
person’s competence, integrity and  character  as  a  judge,  various  other
information have also to be gathered since the  persons  who  fall  in  that
source are retired judges.  Government has its own machinery and  system  to
gather various information about retired judges.   The  Chief  Minister,  it
may be noted, cannot advise  a  name  from  that  source  without  making  a
meaningful  and  effective  consultation  after  disclosing   the   relevant
materials.  This, in my view, is a sufficient  safeguard  against  arbitrary
selection  and  advice.   Further,  as  already  noticed,  the  duties   and
functions of the Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta are investigative in nature  and
their  orders  as  such  cannot  be  executed.   In  such   situation,   the
legislature, in its wisdom, felt that no primacy need be attached  to  views
of the consultees including the Chief Justice  but  on  the  advice  of  the
Chief Minister.



65.   In my view that this is the scheme of Section 3(2)(a) and (b)  of  the
Act and however, much we strain, nothing spells out from the  language  used
in Section 3(2)(a) and (b) to hold that primacy be attached to  the  opinion
expressed by the Chief Justice of  the  High  Court  of  Karnataka.   I  am,
therefore, of the view that the various directions given by the  High  Court
holding that the views of the Chief Justice has got primacy, is  beyond  the
scope of the Act and the High Court has indulged in a  legislative  exercise
which is impermissible in law.  I, therefore, set aside all  the  directions
issued by the High Court, since they are beyond the scope of the Act.



66.   The Chief Minister, in my view, has however committed an error in  not
consulting the Chief Justice of the High Court in the matter of  appointment
of Justice Chandrashekaraiah as Upa Lokayukta.  Records indicate that  there
was no meaningful and effective consultation  or  discussion  of  the  names
suggested among the consultees before advising the Governor for  appointment
to the post of Upa Lokayukta.  The appointment of Justice  Chandrashekaraiah
as Upa Lokayukta, therefore, is in violation of Section 3(2)(b) of  the  Act
since the Chief Justice of the High  Court was not  consulted  nor  was  the
name deliberated upon before advising or appointing him  as  Upa  Lokayukta,
consequently, the appointment of Justice Chandrasekharaiah as Upa  Lokayukta
cannot stand in the eye of law and he has no authority to continue  or  hold
the post of Upa Lokayukta of the State.



67.   Judgment of the High Court is accordingly set aside, with a  direction
to  the  Chief  Minister  of  the  State  to  take  appropriate  steps   for
appointment of Upa Lokayukta in the State of Karnataka, in  accordance  with
law.    Since   nothing   adverse   has   been   found    against    Justice
Chandrasekharaiah, his name can still be considered for appointment  to  the
post of Upa Lokayukta along with other  names,  if  any,  suggested  by  the
other five consultees under the Act.  I, however, make it clear  that  there
is no primacy in the views expressed by any of the consultees and after  due
deliberations of the names suggested by the consultees including  the  name,
if any suggested by the Chief Minister, the Chief Minister  can  advise  any
name from the names discussed to the Governor of the State  for  appointment
of Upa Lokayukta under the Act.  Appeals  are  allowed  as  above,  with  no
order as to costs.





                                              ……………………………..J.
                                              (K.S. Radhakrishnan)
New Delhi,
January 11, 2013

                                                                  REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                 CIVIL APPEAL Nos.197-199           OF 2013
            [Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 15658-15660 OF 2012]


Mr. Justice Chandrashekaraiah (Retd.)        ... Appellant

                        Versus

Janekere C. Krishna & Ors.etc.          ...  Respondents

                                    WITH

                 CIVIL APPEAL Nos.200-202           OF 2013
            [Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 16512-16514 OF 2012]


                               J U D G M E N T



Madan B. Lokur, J.


   1. Leave granted.
   2. Brother Radhakrishnan has elaborately dealt with the issues  raised  –
      and I agree with his conclusions. Nevertheless, I think  it  necessary
      to express my views on the various issues raised.

The issues raised:

   3. My learned Brother has stated the material facts of the case and it is
      not necessary to repeat them.

   4. The principal question for consideration is whether the appointment of
      Justice Chandrashekaraiah as an Upa-lokayukta was in  accordance  with
      the provisions of Section 3(2)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984
      which requires consultation, inter alia, with the Chief Justice of the
      Karnataka High Court. In my opinion,  the  Karnataka  High  Court  was
      right in holding that there was no consultation with the Chief Justice
      specifically on the appointment of Justice Chandrashekaraiah as an Upa-
      lokayukta. His appointment, therefore, is void ab initio.

   5. Several related questions require consideration, including whether the
      Upa-lokayukta is  a  quasi-judicial  authority  or  is  only  (without
      meaning any disrespect)  an  investigator;  who  should  initiate  the
      process  of  appointment  of  an  Upa-lokayukta;  what  is  meant   by
      ‘consultation’ in the context of  Section  3(2)(b)  of  the  Karnataka
      Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short the Act); whether  consultation  is  at
      all mandatory under Section 3(2)(b) of the Act; how is the process  of
      consultation required to be carried out; whether the view of the Chief
      Justice of the Karnataka High Court regarding  the  suitability  of  a
      person for appointment as Upa-lokayukta has primacy over the views  of
      others involved in the consultation and finally, whether the Karnataka
      High Court was  right  in  directing  a  particular  procedure  to  be
      followed for the appointment of an Upa-lokayukta.

   6. The interpretation of Section 3 of the Karnataka Lokayukta  Act,  1984
      arises for consideration. This Section reads as follows:

      “Section 3: Appointment of Lokayukta and Upa-lokayukta


      (1) For the purpose of  conducting  investigations  and  enquiries  in
      accordance with the provisions of this Act, the Governor shall appoint
      a person to be known as the Lokayukta and one or more  persons  to  be
      known as the Upa-lokayukta or Upa-lokayuktas.


      (2)   (a) A person to be appointed as the Lokayukta shall be a  person
           who has held the office of a Judge of the Supreme Court or  that
           of the Chief Justice of a High Court and shall be  appointed  on
           the advice tendered by the Chief Minister in  consultation  with
           the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka, the  Chairman,
           Karnataka   Legislative   Council,   the   Speaker,    Karnataka
           Legislative Assembly,  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  in  the
           Karnataka Legislative Council and the Leader of  the  Opposition
           in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly.


           (b) A person to be appointed as  an  Upa-lokayukta  shall  be  a
           person who has held the office of a judge of a  High  Court  and
           shall be appointed on the advice tendered by the Chief  Minister
           in consultation with the Chief Justice  of  the  High  Court  of
           Karnataka, the  Chairman,  Karnataka  Legislative  Council,  the
           Speaker, Karnataka  Legislative  Assembly,  the  Leader  of  the
           Opposition in the Karnataka Legislative Council and  the  Leader
           of the Opposition in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly.


      (3) A person appointed as the Lokayukta  or  an  Upa-lokayukta  shall,
      before entering upon  his  office,  make  and  subscribe,  before  the
      Governor, or some person appointed in that behalf by him, an  oath  or
      affirmation in  the  form  set  out  for  the  purpose  in  the  First
      Schedule.”


Whether the Upa-lokayukta a quasi-judicial authority:



   7. Without intending to belittle the office of the Upa-lokayukta, it  was
      submitted by learned counsel for the  State  of  Karnataka  (hereafter
      “the  State”)  that  the  Upa-lokayukta  is  essentially  required  to
      investigate complaints and inquire into grievances brought before him.
      In this process, he may be exercising some  quasi-judicial  functions,
      but  that  does  not  make  him  a   quasi-judicial   authority.   The
      significance of this submission lies in the further submission that if
      the Upa-lokayukta is not a quasi-judicial authority then  the  opinion
      of the Chief Justice of  the  Karnataka  High  Court  would  not  have
      primacy in the appointment  and  consultation  process,  otherwise  it
      would have primacy.

(i) View of the High Court:



   8. After discussing the provisions of the Act and the  case  law  on  the
      subject, the High Court was of  the  opinion  that  the  Upa-Lokayukta
      performs functions that are in the nature of judicial,  quasi-judicial
      and investigative. The High Court  expressed  the  view  that  if  the
      functions  of  an  Upa-Lokayukta  were   purely   investigative,   the
      legislature would not have insisted on  a  person  who  has  held  the
      office of a judge of a High Court as the qualification for appointment
      and consultation with the Chief Justice as mandatory.

   9. In coming to this conclusion, the High  Court  drew  attention  to  N.
      Gundappa v. State of Karnataka, 1989 (3) KarLJ 425 wherein it was held
      that  “the  Upa-lokayukta  ….while  conducting  investigation  into  a
      complaint and making a report on  the  basis  of  such  investigation,
      exercises quasi judicial  power.  It  determines  the  complaint  made
      against a public servant involving a 'grievance'  or  an  'allegation'
      and the report becomes the basis for taking action against the  public
      servant by  the  Competent  Authority.”  The  Division  Bench  of  the
      Karnataka High Court upheld this conclusion by a very cryptic order in
      State of Karnataka v. N. Gundappa, ILR 1990 Kar 4188.

  10. The High Court  also  drew  attention  to  Prof.  S.N.  Hegde  v.  The
      Lokayukta, ILR 2004 Kar 3892 wherein the scope of Sections 9,11 and 12
      of the Act were considered and it  was  held  that  proceedings  under
      Section 9 of the Act are judicial proceedings, or in any  event,  they
      are quasi-judicial proceedings. It was said:

      “Therefore, the investigation to be conducted under Section 9 would be
      in the nature of a judicial proceeding and it would be in  the  nature
      of a suit and oral  evidence  is  recorded  on  oath  and  documentary
      evidence  is  also  entertained.  Therefore,  it  is  clear  that  the
      investigation under Section 9 of the Act would be  in  the  nature  of
      judicial proceedings or at any rate it is a quasi-judicial proceedings
      where the principles of natural justice had to be followed and if  any
      evidence is recorded the public servant has the right to cross-examine
      those witnesses.”



(ii) Functions, powers, duties and responsibilities of the Upa-lokayukta

  11. The appointment of an Upa-lokayukta is dealt with in Section 3 of  the
      Act. This Section requires that  the  Upa-lokayukta  must  be  with  a
      person who has held the office of a judge of a High  Court.  The  Upa-
      lokayukta is, therefore, expected to be impartial and having some  (if
      not considerable) judicial experience and abilities.  The  reason  for
      this, quite obviously, is that he would possibly be required  to  deal
      with complaints and grievances against public servants in the State.

  12. Given the importance  of  the  office  of  the  Upa-lokayukta,  he  is
      appointed by the Governor of the State on  the  advice  of  the  Chief
      Minister, in consultation with the Chief Justice of  the  High  Court,
      the Chairman of the Karnataka Legislative Council, the Speaker of  the
      Karnataka Legislative Assembly, the Leader of the  Opposition  in  the
      Karnataka Legislative Council and the Leader of the Opposition in  the
      Karnataka Legislative Assembly. In other words, the appointment of the
      Upa-lokayukta is the concern  of  constitutional  authorities  of  the
      State.

  13. The oath of office taken by the Upa-lokayukta in terms of Section 3(3)
      of the Act is similar to the oath of office taken by a judge of a High
      Court under Schedule III to the  Constitution.  The  only  substantial
      difference between the two is that, in addition, a judge of  the  High
      Court takes an oath to uphold the sovereignty and integrity  of  India
      and uphold the Constitution of India and the laws.

  14. The term of office and other conditions of service of an Upa-lokayukta
      are dealt with in Section 5  of  the  Act.  This  Section,  read  with
      Section 6 of the  Act  (which  deals  with  the  removal  of  an  Upa-
      lokayukta), provides security of tenure to the Upa-lokayukta. He has a
      fixed term of five years and cannot be removed “except by an order  of
      the Governor passed after an  address  by  each  House  of  the  State
      Legislature supported by a majority of the  total  membership  of  the
      House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members  of
      that House present and voting”.  The removal of an  Upa-lokayukta  can
      only be on the ground of proved  misbehavior  or  incapacity  and  the
      procedure for investigation and proof of misbehavior or incapacity  is
      as provided in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968  which  applies  mutatis
      mutandis to an Upa-lokayukta.

  15. On ceasing to hold office, an Upa-lokayukta is ineligible for  further
      employment to any office of  profit  under  the  State  or  any  other
      authority, corporation, company, society or university referred to  in
      the Act. The salary of an Upa-lokayukta is equal to that of a judge of
      the High Court and the conditions of service cannot be varied  to  his
      disadvantage after his appointment.  All the  administrative  expenses
      of the Upa-lokayukta are charged  on  the  Consolidated  Fund  of  the
      State.

  16. In a sense, therefore, the Upa-lokayukta is a high  dignitary  in  the
      State of Karnataka.

  17. Section 7 of the Act provides for matters that may be investigated  by
      the Upa-lokayukta while Section 8 of the Act provides for matters that
      may not be investigated by the Upa-lokayukta. For the purposes of this
      judgment, it is not necessary to refer to Section 8  of  the  Act.  In
      terms of Section 7(2) of the Act, the  Upa-lokayukta  is  entitled  to
      investigate (upon a complaint involving a grievance or an  allegation)
      any action taken by or with the  general  or  special  approval  of  a
      public servant other than one mentioned in Section 7(1)  of  the  Act.
      Only the Lokayukta can investigate action taken by or with the general
      or special approval of a public servant mentioned in Section  7(1)  of
      the Act. The power vested in an  Upa-lokayukta  is,  therefore,  quite
      wide though hierarchically circumscribed.

  18. Section 9 of the Act relates to complaints and investigations  thereon
      by an Upa-lokayukta.  A complaint may be made to him in the form of  a
      statement supported by  an  affidavit.  If  the  Upa-lokayukta,  after
      making a preliminary enquiry proposes to conduct an  investigation  in
      respect of the complaint, he shall follow the  procedure  provided  in
      Section 9(3) of the Act which broadly conforms to  the  principles  of
      natural justice by giving an opportunity to the public servant against
      whom the complaint is being investigated  to  offer  comments  on  the
      complaint.

  19. For the purposes of any enquiry or other proceedings to  be  conducted
      by him, an Upa-lokayukta is empowered by Section  10  of  the  Act  to
      issue a warrant for search and seizure against any person or property.
      The warrant can be executed by a police officer not below the rank  of
      Inspector of Police authorized by the Upa-lokayukta to carry  out  the
      search and seizure.  The provisions of Section 10 of the Act also make
      it clear that the provisions of the Code of Criminal  Procedure,  1973
      relating to search and seizure shall apply.

  20. By virtue of Section 11 of the  Act,  an  Upa-lokayukta  has  all  the
      powers  of  a  Civil  Court  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out   an
      investigation.  These  powers  include  summoning  and  enforcing  the
      attendance of any person and examining  him  on  oath;  requiring  the
      discovery and  production  of  any  document;  receiving  evidence  on
      affidavits and other  related  powers.  Proceedings  before  the  Upa-
      lokayukta are deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning  of
      Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code.  In this context,  Section  17-A
      of the Act is important and this Section enables the Upa-lokayukta  to
      exercise the same powers of contempt of itself as a High Court and for
      this purpose, the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 shall
      have effect mutatis mutandis.

  21. The Upa-lokayukta is protected by virtue of Section 15 of the  Act  in
      respect of any suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings in respect
      of anything that is done in good faith while acting or  purporting  to
      act in the discharge of his official duties under the Act.

  22. The Upa-lokayukta is statutorily obliged under Section  12(1)  of  the
      Act to submit a report in  writing  if,  after  investigation  of  any
      grievance, he is satisfied that  the  complainant  has  suffered  some
      injustice or undue hardship. In his report to the Competent Authority,
      as defined in  Section  2(4)  of  the  Act,  the  Upa-lokayukta  shall
      recommend that the injustice or hardship be remedied or redressed in a
      particular manner and within a specified time frame.  Sub-section  (2)
      of Section 12 of the Act requires the Competent Authority to submit an
      ‘action taken report’ to the Upa-lokayukta within  one  month  on  the
      report given by him.  Sub-section (3) and sub-section (4)  of  Section
      12 of the Act are similar to sub-section (1) and  (2)  thereof  except
      that they deal  with  an  ‘action  taken  report’  in  respect  of  an
      investigation resulting in the substantiation  of  an  allegation.  In
      such a case, the Competent Authority is obliged to furnish an  ‘action
      taken report’ within three months of receipt of the report of the Upa-
      lokayukta. Sub-section (5) and sub-section (7) of Section  12  of  the
      Act provide that in the event the Upa-lokayukta is not satisfied  with
      the action taken report, he may make a special report upon the case to
      the Governor of the State who shall cause a copy thereof  to  be  laid
      before  each  House  of  the  State  Legislature  together   with   an
      explanatory memorandum.

  23. In short, Section 12 of the Act confers a  decision-making  obligation
      on the Upa-lokayukta in respect of grievances and complaints  received
      by him.

  24. Section 13 of the Act requires a public servant to vacate  his  office
      if so directed by the Upa-lokayukta if a declaration is made  to  that
      effect in a report under Section 12(3) of the  Act.  Even  though  the
      declaration may  not  be  accepted,  it  does  not  whittle  down  the
      authority of the Upa-lokayukta.

  25. Section 14 of the Act enables the Upa-lokayukta to prosecute a  public
      servant and if such an action is  taken,  sanction  to  prosecute  the
      public servant shall be deemed to have been granted by the appropriate
      authority.

  26. The conditions of service  of  the  staff  of  the  Upa-lokayukta  are
      referred to in Section 15 of  the  Act.  They  may  be  prescribed  in
      consultation with the Lokayukta in such a manner that  the  staff  may
      act without fear in the discharge of their functions.  Section  15  of
      the Act also enables the Upa-lokayukta to utilize the services of  any
      officer or investigating agency of the State or even  of  the  Central
      Government,  though  with  the  prior  concurrence  of   the   Central
      Government or the State Government.  Section 15(4) of the Act makes it
      clear that the officers and other employees of the  Upa-lokayukta  are
      under the administrative and disciplinary control of the Lokayukta.

  27. The broad spectrum of functions, powers, duties  and  responsibilities
      of the Upa-lokayukta, as statutorily  prescribed,  clearly  bring  out
      that not only does he perform quasi-judicial functions, as  contrasted
      with purely administrative or executive functions, but that  the  Upa-
      lokayukta is more than an investigator or an enquiry officer.  At  the
      same time, notwithstanding  his  status,  he  is  not  placed  on  the
      pedestal of a judicial authority rendering a binding decision.  He  is
      placed somewhere in between an investigator and a judicial  authority,
      having the elements of both. For want  of  a  better  expression,  the
      office of an Upa-lokayukta can only be  described  as  a  sui  generis
      quasi-judicial authority.

(iii) Decisions on the subject:

  28. Learned counsel for the State referred to The Bharat Bank Ltd.,  Delhi
      v. Employees of the  Bharat  Bank  Ltd.,  Delhi,  [1950]  SCR  459  to
      highlight the difference between a court and a  tribunal.  It  is  not
      necessary to go into this issue because the question  is  not  whether
      the Upa-lokayukta is a court or a tribunal – the question  is  whether
      he is a quasi-judicial authority or an  administrative  authority.  To
      this extent, the decision of the Constitution Bench does not add to an
      understanding of the issue under consideration.

  29. However, the decision does indicate that an Upa-lokayukta is certainly
      not a court. He does not  adjudicate  a  lis  nor  does  he  render  a
      “judicial decision” derived from the judicial powers of the State.  An
      Upa-lokayukta is also  not  a  tribunal,  although  he  may  have  the
      procedural trappings (as it were) of a tribunal.  The  final  decision
      rendered by the Upa-lokayukta, called a report, may not bear the stamp
      of a judicial decision, as would that of  a  court  or,  to  a  lesser
      extent, a tribunal, but in formulating the report, he is  required  to
      consider the point of view of the person complained against and ensure
      that the investigation reaches its logical conclusion, one way or  the
      other, without any interference and without any fear.  Notwithstanding
      this, the report of the Upa-lokayukta does not determine the rights of
      the complainant or the person complained  against.  Consequently,  the
      Upa-lokayukta is neither a court nor  a  tribunal.  Therefore,  in  my
      opinion, the Upa-lokayukta can best be  described  as  a  sui  generis
      quasi-judicial authority.

  30. Reference by learned counsel for the State to Durga Shankar  Mehta  v.
      Thakur Raghuraj Singh and Others, [1955] 1 SCR 267 also does not  take
      us much further in determining whether an Upa-lokayukta  is  a  quasi-
      judicial authority or  not.  That  case  concerned,  inter  alia,  the
      competency of an appeal on special leave  under  Article  136  of  the
      Constitution from a decision of the Election Tribunal. In  that  case,
      it was clearly laid down that courts and tribunals are “constituted by
      the State and are invested with judicial as distinguished from  purely
      administrative or executive functions”.

  31. However, the issue is  more  specifically  dealt  with  in  Associated
      Cement Companies v. P.N. Sharma, 1965  (2)  SCR  366.  In  that  case,
      Kania, C.J. held:

      “It seems to me that the true position is  that  when  the  law  under
      which the authority is making a decision, itself requires  a  judicial
      approach, the decision will be  quasi-judicial.  Prescribed  forms  of
      procedure are not necessary to make an inquiry judicial,  provided  in
      coming to the decision the well-recognised principles of approach  are
      required to be followed.”





  32. Similarly, Das, J held, after reviewing a large number of cases  where
      there were two disputing parties and an authority to adjudicate  their
      dispute and where there were no two disputing parties but there was an
      authority to sit in judgment. I am presently concerned with the second
      line of cases. The learned Judge held:

      “What are the principles to be deduced from the two lines of  cases  I
      have referred to? The principles, as I apprehend them, are:  (i)  that
      if a statute empowers an authority, not being a Court in the  ordinary
      sense, to decide disputes arising out of a claim  made  by  one  party
      under the statute which claim is  opposed  by  another  party  and  to
      determine the respective rights of  the  contesting  parties  who  are
      opposed to each other, there is a lis  and  prima  facie  and  in  the
      absence of anything in the statute to the contrary it is the  duty  of
      the authority to act judicially and the decision of the authority is a
      quasi-judicial act; and (ii) that if a statutory authority  has  power
      to do any act which  will  prejudicially  affect  the  subject,  then,
      although there are not two parties apart from the  authority  and  the
      contest is between the authority proposing  to  do  the  act  and  the
      subject opposing it, the final determination of the authority will yet
      be a quasi-judicial act provided the  authority  is  required  by  the
      statute to act judicially.”



  33. As mentioned above, an Upa-lokayukta does function as an  adjudicating
      authority but the Act places him short of a judicial authority. He  is
      much  more  “judicial”  than  an  investigator  or  an   inquisitorial
      authority largely exercising administrative or executive functions and
      powers. Under  the  circumstances,  taking  an  overall  view  of  the
      provisions of the Act and the law laid down, my conclusion is that the
      Upa-lokayukta is  a  quasi-judicial  authority  or  in  any  event  an
      authority exercising functions, powers,  duties  and  responsibilities
      conferred by the Act as a sui generis quasi-judicial authority.

  34. However, this is  really  of  not  much  consequence  in  view  of  my
      conclusion on the issue  of  primacy  of  the  opinion  of  the  Chief
      Justice.

Initiating the process of appointment of an Upa-lokayukta:

  35. Having held that the Upa-lokayukta is  a  sui  generis  quasi-judicial
      authority, the question for consideration is who should  initiate  the
      process for the appointment of an Upa-lokayukta. The  significance  of
      this is that it is tied up with the primacy of the views of the  Chief
      Justice of the High Court. That in turn  is  tied  up  with  not  only
      maintaining the independence of  the  office  but  also  of  the  Upa-
      lokayukta not being dependent on the Executive for the appointment.

(i) View of the High Court:

  36. The High Court was of the opinion that to maintain the independence of
      the office of the Lokayukta and the Upa-lokayukta under the  Act,  the
      recommendation for appointment to these offices must emanate only from
      the Chief Justice and only the  name  recommended  by  him  should  be
      considered. The High Court opined:

      “[T]he name of the Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta to be appointed has  to
      necessarily  emanate  from  a  person  who   is   not   within   their
      jurisdiction. The only person who is outside the ambit of Lokayukta is
      the Chief Justice and all other Constitutional  authorities  mentioned
      in the provision come within his jurisdiction. They will not have  the
      right to suggest the name. Only the Chief Justice would have the right
      to  suggest  the  name  which,  of  course  the  other  Constitutional
      authorities can  consider.  Though  all  of  them  are  constitutional
      authorities, all of them cannot be placed on the  same  pedestal.  The
      Chief Justice is the head of the Judiciary in the State, and he cannot
      be compared with others. That is why the legislature  has  consciously
      enacted the provision in such a manner that the  first  person  to  be
      consulted is the Chief Justice. The intention of  the  legislature  is
      clear.  The  name  has  to  emanate  from  the  Chief  Justice  alone.
      Therefore, the law laid down by the Constitution  Bench  of  the  Apex
      Court squarely applies  to  the  appointment  of  Lokayukta  and  Upa-
      Lokayukta. Therefore, we have no  hesitation  in  holding  that  under
      Section 3 of the Act, it is only the Chief Justice who  shall  suggest
      the name of the  Judge  for  being  appointed  as  Lokayukta  or  Upa-
      Lokayukta. Other constitutional functionaries have no  such  right  to
      suggest the name. It is only "one" name and  not  panel  of  names  as
      there is no indication to that effect in the provision.”







(ii) Submissions and decisions on the subject:



  37. Learned counsel first made a reference to Sarwan Singh Lamba v.  Union
      of India, (1995) 4 SCC 546 in which the Chief Minister  of  the  State
      initiated the process for the appointment  of  the  Vice-Chairman  and
      members of the State Administrative Tribunal. It  was  contended  that
      their appointments were, inter alia, contrary to  the  procedure  laid
      down in the decision of this Court in S.P. Sampath Kumar v.  Union  of
      India, (1987) 1 SCC 124. The Constitution Bench noted that  the  State
      Government had initiated the process of appointment and that the Chief
      Minister of the State had mooted the name of  one  of  the  candidates
      selected by a Selection Committee headed by the Chief Justice  of  the
      High Court. However, since the  appointees  were  duly  qualified  and
      eligible to hold the post to which they were appointed; there  was  no
      allegation  regarding  their  suitability  or   otherwise;   and   the
      appointments having been made after consultation with the  then  Chief
      Justice of India, this Court concluded that no law was violated in the
      appointment process. Accordingly, the Constitution Bench  declined  to
      interfere with their appointments. The issue whether  the  appointment
      process could or could not have been initiated by  the  Executive  was
      not specifically discussed.

  38. Ashish Handa v. Hon’ble the Chief Justice of High Court  of  Punjab  &
      Haryana and Others, (1996) 3 SCC 145 related to the appointment of the
      President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, being a
      person who is or has been a judge of the High Court. This  Court  held
      that for the purposes of initiating the proposal  for  appointment  of
      the President of the State Commission, the Executive  is  expected  to
      approach the  Chief  Justice  of  the  High  Court  for  suggesting  a
      candidate for appointment. In other words, the  Chief  Justice  should
      initiate the appointment process. Sarwan Singh Lamba was distinguished
      by observing that “[I]n the facts of that case, substantial compliance
      of the requirement of approval by the Chief Justice of India was found
      proved and, therefore, the appointments were valid.”

  39. The appointment of the President of the State Commission again came up
      for deliberation in Ashok Tanwar and  Another  v.  State  of  Himachal
      Pradesh and Others, (2005) 2 SCC  104.  However,  in  that  case,  the
      Constitution Bench did not comment on the  view  expressed  in  Ashish
      Handa that the Chief Justice of  the  High  Court  must  initiate  the
      process for appointment of the President of the State  Commission  and
      not the Executive of the State. The law laid down in Ashish  Handa  to
      this extent remained unchanged. However, Ashish Handa was overruled on
      the modality of the consultation process, which  I  will  consider  in
      another section of this judgment. That Ashish Handa was  overruled  on
      the modality of the consultation process for the  appointment  of  the
      President of the State Commission under Section  16  of  the  Consumer
      Protection Act was confirmed in State of Haryana v. National  Consumer
      Awareness Group, (2005) 5 SCC 284.

  40. In N. Kannadasan v.  Ajoy  Khose  and  Others,  (2009)  7  SCC  1  the
      appointment of the President of the State Commission under Section  16
      of the Consumer Protection Act once again came up  for  consideration.
      After referring to Ashish Handa, Ashok Tanwar  and  National  Consumer
      Awareness Group it was held in paragraph 153 of the  Report  that  the
      process of selection must be initiated  by  the  High  Court.  It  was
      observed that the Chief Justice should recommend only one name and not
      a panel, for if the choice of selection from a panel is  left  to  the
      Executive, it would erode the independence of the Judiciary.

  41. One significant fact may be noticed from a reading of the cases  cited
      above, namely, that for the appointment of the Vice Chairman or Member
      of the State Administrative Tribunal or the  President  of  the  State
      Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,  only  the  Chief  Justice  of
      India or the Chief Justice  of  the  High  Court  is  required  to  be
      consulted, and not several persons. It is this  context  that  it  was
      held that the Chief Justice  of  the  High  Court  must  initiate  the
      process of  appointment.  Sarwan  Singh  Lamba  is  perhaps  the  only
      exception to this rule and was, therefore, confined to its own  facts.
      A situation where more than one person is required to be consulted was
      not dealt with in  any  of  the  decisions  referred  to  above.  That
      question arises in this case.

  42. A reading of the cited decisions also suggests that the Chief  Justice
      must recommend only one name and not a panel of names. The purpose  of
      this is to ensure the independence of the  persons  appointed  and  to
      obviate any possibility of executive influence. The acceptance or non-
      acceptance of the candidate recommended by  the  Chief  Justice  is  a
      different matter concerning the consultation process.

  43. What are the mechanics of initiating the process  of  appointment?  Is
      the Chief Justice expected to  inform  the  State  Government  that  a
      statutory judicial position is lying vacant and that someone is  being
      recommended to fill up that position? Or does it imply that the  State
      Government should bring it to the notice of  the  Chief  Justice  that
      there is a statutory judicial position lying vacant and that it  needs
      to be filled up and to then  request  the  Chief  Justice  to  make  a
      recommendation? No clear answer is available from the cited cases, but
      it does appear that the responsibility is of the Executive  to  inform
      the Chief Justice of the existence of a vacancy and to request him  to
      recommend a suitable person for filling it up.   However,  this  would
      not  preclude  the  Chief  Justice  from  initiating  the  appointment
      process, particularly in the event of the failure of the Executive  to
      take necessary steps.

  44. What would happen if the Executive, while initiating  the  process  of
      appointment were to recommend the name of a person? Would  it  vitiate
      the process or would the process be only irregular? Again,  no  clear-
      cut answer is available. Sarwan Singh Lamba seems to suggest that  the
      procedure would not be vitiated but would, at best, only be irregular.
      But, Ashok Tanwar seems to suggest, sub silentio, that the appointment
      procedure would be vitiated.

  45. Would these principles laid down by this Court apply to initiating the
      process of appointment of the Upa-lokayukta under  the  Act?  I  think
      not. In the appointment of the Upa-lokayukta, the Chief Minister  must
      consult not only the Chief Justice but  several  other  constitutional
      authorities also and given the fact that the Upa-Lokayukta  is  not  a
      purely judicial authority, it hardly matters who initiates the process
      of appointment of the Upa-Lokayukta. Ordinarily, it must be the  Chief
      Minister since he has to tender advice  to  the  Governor  and,  in  a
      sense, the appointment is his primary responsibility.  But  this  does
      not preclude any of  the  other  constitutional  authorities  who  are
      required to be consulted from bringing it to the notice of  the  Chief
      Minister that the post of the Upa-Lokayukta needs to be filled up  and
      that the appointment process ought to commence  –  nothing  more  than
      that. None of them  ought  to  suggest  a  name  since  constitutional
      courtesy would demand that only the Chief Minister should initiate the
      appointment process. There is no reason to hold  that  merely  because
      the Upa-Lokayukta is a sui generis quasi-judicial authority, only  the
      Chief Justice must initiate the process of appointment. It must not be
      forgotten that the selection of the Upa-lokayukta  is  a  consultative
      process  involving  several  constitutional  authorities  and  in  the
      context of the Act, no constitutional authority is subordinate to  the
      other.

  46. In the present case, the process of appointment of  the  Upa-lokayukta
      commenced with a letter written by the Chief  Minister  to  the  Chief
      Justice  of  the  Karnataka  High  Court  on  18th  October  2011  for
      suggesting “a panel of eligible persons for appointment  as  Karnataka
      Upa Lokayukta on or before 24th October, 2011 so as  to  fill  up  the
      post of Upa Lokayukta”.  I cannot fault the Chief Minister  for  this.
      He did not initiate the  appointment  process  as  understood  in  the
      decisions  referred  to  above  by  recommending  any  candidate   for
      appointment – he merely invited recommendations. He also did  not  err
      in law in inviting a panel of names  since  the  consultation  process
      involved more than one person. It was for  the  persons  concerned  to
      recommend a panel of names or  make  one  recommendation  or  make  no
      recommendation at all. As far as the Chief Justice was  concerned,  in
      keeping with the general view expressed by this Court in Kannadasan it
      was proper and appropriate for him to have recommended only  one  name
      to the Chief Minister and, as required by propriety, he correctly  did
      so by recommending  only  one  person  for  appointment  as  the  Upa-
      lokayukta.

  47. I am, therefore, not  in  agreement  with  the  High  Court  that  the
      recommendation for appointing the Upa-lokayukta  under  the  Act  must
      emanate only from the Chief Justice and only the name  recommended  by
      him should be considered. To this extent, the  decision  of  the  High
      Court is set aside. It is made clear that this view does not apply  to
      judicial appointments.

Consultation in the appointment of an Upa-lokayukta:

  48. What does ‘consultation’ occurring  in  Section  3(2)(b)  of  the  Act
      postulate?  Learned counsel for the State, as well as learned  counsel
      for Justice Chandrashekaraiah and the  writ  petitioner  in  the  High
      Court firstly referred to the above decisions of this Court to explain
      the meaning of  ‘consultation’  in  the  context  of  the  appointment
      process and secondly in the context of the issue whether the  view  of
      the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court would  have  primacy  in
      the process of consultation.

(i) View of the High Court:

  49. The High Court gave a realistic meaning  to  ‘consultation’  generally
      and, in my opinion,  specifically  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  as
      occurring in Section 3(2)(b) of the Act.  This is what the High  Court
      had to say:

      “The word 'consult' implies a conference of two  or  more  persons  or
      impact of two or more minds in respect of a  topic/subject.  A  person
      consults another to  be  elucidated  on  the  subject  matter  of  the
      consultation. Consultation is a  process  which  requires  meeting  of
      minds between the parties involved in the process of  consultation  on
      the material facts and points involved to evolve a correct or  atleast
      satisfactory solutions. There should be meeting of minds  between  the
      proposer  and  the  persons  to  be  consulted  on  the   subject   of
      consultation. A consultation may be between an uninformed  person  and
      an expert or between two experts. In either case, the  final  decision
      is with the consultor, but he  will  not  be  generally  ignoring  the
      advice except for good reasons. The consultation is  not  complete  or
      effective before the parties thereto making their respective points of
      view known to the other or others and discuss and examine the relative
      merits of their views. In order for two minds to be able to confer and
      produce a mutual impact, it is essential that each must have  for  its
      consideration fully and identical facts, which can at once  constitute
      both  the  source  and  foundation  of  the  final  decision.  Such  a
      consultation  may  take  place  at  a  conference  table  or   through
      correspondence.  The  form  is  not  material  but  the  substance  is
      important. If there are more than one person to be consulted, all  the
      persons to be consulted should know  the  subject  with  reference  to
      which they are consulted. Each one should know the views of the  other
      on the subject. There should be meeting of minds between  the  parties
      involved in the process of consultation  on  the  material  facts  and
      points involved. The consultor cannot keep one consultee in dark about
      the views of the other consultee. When consultation is prescribed with
      more than one person,  there  cannot  be  bilateral  consultations  or
      parallel consultations, behind the back  of  others,  who  are  to  be
      consulted in the process. Consultation is not  complete  or  effective
      before the parties thereto make their respective points of view  known
      to the other and discuss and  examine  the  relative  merit  of  their
      views. They may discuss, but may disagree. They may confer but may not
      concur. However, consultation is different from consentaneity.”



(ii) Consultation in the appointment process:

  50. Sarwan Singh Lamba did not deal with the issue  of  consultation,  but
      Ashish  Handa,  Ashok  Tanwar  and  Kannadasan  did.  That  being  so,
      reference may be made to the relevant portion of Section 16(1) of  the
      Consumer Protection Act which relates to the President  of  the  State
      Commission. This extract reads as follows:-


      “16.  Composition of the State Commission.— (1) Each State  Commission
      shall consist of—

        (a)      a person who is or has been  a  Judge  of  a  High  Court,
           appointed by the State Government, who shall be its President:

           Provided that no appointment under this  clause  shall  be  made
           except after consultation with the Chief  Justice  of  the  High
           Court;

        (b)      xxx”



51.   It was observed in  Ashish  Handa  that  the  function  of  the  State
Commission is primarily to adjudicate  consumer  disputes  and  therefore  a
person from the judicial branch is considered suitable  for  the  office  of
the President of the State Commission  under  Section  16  of  the  Consumer
Protection Act. Given  this  context,  prior  consultation  with  the  Chief
Justice of the High Court is obvious since the Chief  Justice  is  the  most
appropriate person to know the suitability of the person to be appointed  as
the President of the State Commission. Further elaborating on this,  it  was
held that the procedure of consultation should be the same as laid  down  in
Article 217 of the Constitution as interpreted in  Supreme  Court  Advocates
on Record Association v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 268.

52.   In Ashok Tanwar the Constitution  Bench  considered  the  dictum  laid
down in Ashish Handa and categorically  distinguished  the  process  of  the
appointment of a judge  of  a  superior  court  under  Article  217  of  the
Constitution from that of the President of  the  State  Commission.  It  was
observed in paragraph 16 of the Report as follows:-

      “The process of consultation envisaged under Section 16  of  the  Act
      can  neither  be  equated  to  the  constitutional   requirement   of
      consultation under Article 217 of the  Constitution  in  relation  to
      appointment of a Judge of a High Court nor can it be  placed  on  the
      same pedestal. Consultation by the Chief Justice of  the  High  Court
      with two senior most Judges in selecting  a  suitable  candidate  for
      appointment as a Judge is for  the  purpose  of  selecting  the  best
      person to the high  office  of  a  Judge  of  the  High  Court  as  a
      constitutional functionary. Consultation with the  Chief  Justice  of
      the High Court in terms of Section 16  of  the  Act  is  a  statutory
      requirement.”




53.   Further, while referring to Aruna Roy v. Union of India, (2002) 7  SCC
368 it was observed that:

      “… the words and expressions used in  the  Constitution,  ….  have  no
      fixed meaning and must receive interpretation based on the  experience
      of the people in the course of working of the Constitution.  The  same
      thing cannot be  said  in  relation  to  interpreting  the  words  and
      expressions in a statute.”



54.    This  Court  categorically  rejected  the  view  that  ‘consultation’
postulated  in  Article  217  of  the  Constitution  in  relation   to   the
appointment of a High Court judge be read in the same way as  ‘consultation’
as contemplated under Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act.

55.   In Kannadasan it was  noted  that  the  collegium  of  judges  of  the
Supreme Court had found N. Kannadasan unfit to continue as a  judge  of  the
High Court. In this context, it was observed that  the  expression  “retired
judge” would mean a person who has retired without blemish and not merely  a
person who has been a judge and,  therefore,  attention  was  drawn  to  the
conclusion of Fazal Ali, J in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India,  1981  Supp  SCC
87 (after referring to Union of India v. Sankalchand Himmatlal Seth,  (1977)
4 SCC 193) that both the “consultor” and the “consultee”  must  have  before
them full and identical facts.

56.   It follows from the decisions placed before us that there is  a  clear
distinction between ‘consultation’ in  the  appointment  of  a  judge  of  a
superior  court  and  ‘consultation’  in  the  appointment  to  a  statutory
judicial position. For the  former,  the  Chief  Justice  must  consult  the
collegium of judges, while it is not  necessary  for  the  latter.  In  both
cases, consultation is mandatory.

57.   The further question that arises is  whether  the  law  laid  down  in
these decisions would be applicable to the appointment of  an  Upa-Lokayukta
who is not a judicial or a constitutional authority but  is  a  sui  generis
quasi-judicial authority?  In my opinion, the answer to this  question  must
be in the affirmative.

58.   At this stage, it is necessary to mention that on a plain  reading  of
Section 3(2)(b) of the Act, there can be no  doubt  that  consultation  with
all the constitutional authorities,  including  the  Chief  Justice  of  the
Karnataka High Court, is mandatory. There was  no  dispute  on  this  –  the
controversy was limited to the meaning of  ‘consultation’.  I  have  already
held that an  Upa-lokayukta  is  not  a  judicial  authority,  let  alone  a
constitutional authority like  a  judge  of  a  High  Court.  Therefore,  on
reading of the above decisions, it is clear that the mandatory  consultation
in the appointment process as postulated by Section 3(2)(b) of  the  Act  is
with the Chief Justice in his individual capacity and not consultation in  a
collegial capacity.

(iii) The process of consultation:

59.   How is this ‘consultation’ to take  place?  There  are  absolutely  no
‘consultation’ guidelines laid down in the Act. But the High Court seems  to
endorse the view that consultation  ought  take  place  across  a  table  or
through correspondence. It was also suggested by  learned  counsel  for  the
State that it would be more appropriate that all constitutional  authorities
have  a  meeting  where  the  suitability  of  the  person  recommended  for
appointment may be discussed.

60.    I  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  circumscribe  the   manner   of
consultation. The  Chief  Minister  may  consult  the  other  constitutional
authorities collectively or in groups or even  individually  –  this  hardly
matters  as  long  as  there  is  meaningful  and  effective   consultation.
Similarly,  I  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  restrict   the   mode   of
consultation. It may be in a meeting or through correspondence. Today,  with
available technology, consultation may even be through  a  video  link.  The
form of consultation or the venue of consultation is not  important  -  what
is important is the substance of the consultation.  The  matter  has  to  be
looked at pragmatically and not semantically.  It is important, as  held  by
the High Court, that no constitutional authority is kept in the  dark  about
the name of  any  candidate  under  consideration  and  each  constitutional
authority  mentioned  in  Section  3(2)(b)  of  the  Act   must   know   the
recommendation made by one another for appointment as an  Upa-Lokayukta.  In
addition, they must have before them (as Fazal  Ali,  J  concluded  in  S.P.
Gupta) full and identical facts. As long as  these  basic  requirements  are
met, ‘consultation’ could be said to have taken place.

(iv) Consultation in this case:

61.   Was there  ‘consultation’  (as  I  have  understood  it)  between  the
various constitutional authorities before  the  Chief  Minister  recommended
the name of Justice Chandrashekharaiah? I think  not.  In  response  to  the
letter of the Chief Minister, the Chief  Justice  recommended  the  name  of
Justice  Rangavittalachar;  the  Speaker   of   the   Legislative   Assembly
recommended Justice Chandrashekharaiah;  the  Chairman  of  the  Legislative
Council  recommended  Justice  Chandrashekharaiah;   the   Leader   of   the
Opposition in the Legislative Assembly recommended  Justice  Mohammed  Anwar
and Justice Ramanna;  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  in  the  Legislative
Council recommended Justice Mohammed Anwar and Justice  Ramanna.  Therefore,
as many as four retired judges were  recommended  for  appointment  as  Upa-
lokayukta. It is not clear whether  the  names  of  all  these  judges  were
disclosed to  all  the  constitutional  authorities.  The  name  of  Justice
Chandrashekharaiah was certainly not disclosed to the Chief Justice,  as  is
evident from his letter dated 4th  February  2012  wherein  he  stated  four
times  that  he  was  not  consulted   on   the   appointment   of   Justice
Chandrashekharaiah. This is what he stated:

      “I was not consulted on the said name (Shri Justice Chandrashekaraiah)
      for the position of Karnataka Upa Lokayukta.

      … … …

      “I had not recommended the name of Shri. Justice Chandrashekaraiah for
      consideration for appointment as Karnataka Upa Lokayukta.  Thereafter,
      I have not heard anything from you. I emphasise that  the  appointment
      of Shri. Justice Chandrashekaraiah has been made without  consultation
      with the Chief Justice. Therefore, it is  in  violation  of  mandatory
      requirements of law.

      … … …

      “To put the matter plainly, there is no gainsaying the fact that there
      never  ever  was  any  consultation  on  the  name  of  Shri   Justice
      Chandrashekaraiah for appointment to the  position  of  Upa  Lokayukta
      between you and myself.

      … … …

      “I reiterate that in this particular  case,  not  even  the  name  was
      shared by you (the Chief Minister) with me (the Chief Justice),  leave
      alone eliciting my views on the suitability of the person for  holding
      the post of Upa Lokayukta.”



62.   The contents of this letter are not denied by the State and are  quite
obviously admitted. Significantly, the Chief Minister did not reply to  this
letter. Clearly, the Chief Justice was kept in the dark about the name of  a
candidate and there was no full and complete disclosure of facts. Ergo,  the
Chief Minister did not recommend the name of Justice  Chandrashekharaiah  in
consultation with the Chief Justice. This  was  contrary  to  the  mandatory
requirement of Section 3(2)(b) of the Act and so, it must be held  that  the
appointment of Justice Chandrashekharaiah was void ab initio.

63.   In this context, reference was made to Indian  Administrative  Service
(S.C.S.) Association U.P. and Others v. Union  of  India  and  Others,  1993
Supp. (1) SCC 730 to contend that since  the  views  of  the  constitutional
authorities  are  not  binding  on  the  Chief  Minister,  the  process   of
consultation is not mandatory. In that  case,  this  Court  was  considering
Section 3(1) of the All India Service Act, 1951 which reads as follows:


      “Regulation of  recruitment  and  conditions  of  services.-  (1)  The
      Central Govt. may, after consultation  with  the  Governments  of  the
      States concerned (including the State of Jammu and Kashmir),  (and  by
      notification in the Official Gazette) make rules for the regulation of
      recruitment, and the conditions of service of persons appointed to  an
      All India Service.”





64.   The fifth conclusion mentioned in IAS Association  was  relied  on  in
support of this contention. This conclusion reads as follows:

      “When the object of  the  consultation  is  only  to  apprise  of  the
      proposed action and when the opinion or advice is not binding  on  the
      authorities or person and is not  bound  to  be  accepted,  the  prior
      consultation is only directory. The authority proposing to take action
      should make known the  general  scheme  or  outlines  of  the  actions
      proposed to be taken be put to notice of the authority or the  persons
      to be  consulted;  have  the  views  or  objections,  take  them  into
      consideration, and  thereafter,  the  authority  or  person  would  be
      entitled or has/have authority to  pass  appropriate  orders  or  take
      decision thereon. In such circumstances it amounts to an action 'after
      consultation'.”







65.   This conclusion must not be read  in  isolation  but  along  with  the
other conclusions arrived at in IAS  Association.  This  Court  referred  to
‘prior consultation’ in the context of  the  “subject  of  consultation”  as
mentioned in the first conclusion. This ‘prior consultation’ is  not  always
mandatory. Then there is ‘consultation’ as a part  of  “fair  procedure”  as
mentioned in the second conclusion. This is  mandatory.  Finally,  there  is
the conclusion arrived at which is ‘after consultation’. In some  cases  the
‘consultor’ may be bound to accept the conclusion arrived  at  and  in  some
cases he may not. That is a matter of interpretation of the statute and  the
purpose of the consultation process. But to say that since  the  ‘consultor’
is not bound by the conclusion arrived  at,  he  need  not  go  through  the
consultation  process  would  be  stretching  the  law  laid  down  in   IAS
Association to the vanishing point.

66.   This Court held in  IAS  Association,  with  reference  to  the  above
provision, that ‘prior consultation’  was  not  mandatory  as  long  as  the
relevant rules were made ‘after  consultation’.  The  present  case  is  not
concerned with the issue of ‘prior consultation’. All that is of concern  in
the present case is whether the Chief Minister acted  in  consultation  with
the constitutional authorities referred to Section 3(3)(b) of  the  Act  and
the answer to this is in the negative.

67.   ‘Consultation’ for the purposes of Section 3(2)(b)  of  the  Act  does
not and cannot postulate concurrence  or  consent.  This  is  quite  obvious
given the  large  number  of  constitutional  authorities  involved  in  the
consultation process. There  is  always  a  possibility  of  an  absence  of
agreement on any one single person being recommended for appointment  as  an
Upa-lokayukta, as has actually happened in  the  present  case.  In  such  a
situation, it is ultimately the decision of the Chief Minister  what  advice
to tender to the Governor, since he alone has to take the final call.

68.   Can the Chief Minister advice the Governor to  appoint  a  person  not
recommended by any of the constitutional authorities? I see  no  reason  why
he cannot, as long as he consults them – the  ‘consultation’  being  in  the
manner postulated above. The  Chief  Minister  can  recommend  a  completely
different person, other  than  any  of  those  recommended  by  any  of  the
constitutional authorities as long as he does not  keep  them  in  the  dark
about the name of the candidate and there is a full and complete  disclosure
of all relevant facts.  In M.M. Gupta v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (1982)  3
SCC 412 this Court  explained  ‘consultation’  in  the  matter  of  judicial
appointments in the following words (which  apply  equally  to  the  present
case):

      “It is well settled that consultation or deliberation is not  complete
      or effective before the parties thereto make their  respective  points
      of view known to the other or  others  and  discuss  and  examine  the
      relative merits of their views. If one party makes a proposal  to  the
      other  who  has  a  counter  proposal  in  his  minds  which  is   not
      communicated to the proposer, the direction  to  give  effect  to  the
      counter proposal without anything more, cannot be said  to  have  been
      done after consultation.”



69.   On the facts of this case, I  hold  that  there  was  no  consultation
between the Chief Minister and the  Chief  Justice  on  the  appointment  of
Justice  Chandrashekharaiah  as  an  Upa-lokayukta.  His  appointment   was,
therefore, void ab initio.

(v) Primacy of the view of the Chief Justice:

70.   The High Court was of the opinion  that  primacy  is  required  to  be
given to the view of the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High  Court  in  the
matter of the appointment of the Upa-lokayukta. In fact, it  was  said  that
since the Chief Justice is the  best  person  to  know  the  suitability  or
otherwise of a retired judge of  a  High  Court.  It  was  also  said  that,
“Requesting the Chief Justice to suggest a name and on receipt of the  same,
ignoring the said name and tendering  advice  to  the  Governor  to  appoint
somebody else, would make the consultation a farce.”

71.   In Ashok Tanwar the Constitution Bench did make  a  reference  to  the
primacy of the Chief Justice of India in the context of the  appointment  of
a judge of the superior court and noted  that  the  Chief  Justice  is  best
equipped to know and assess the work of the candidate  and  his  suitability
for appointment.  However,  the  Constitution  Bench  did  not  express  any
opinion on the question of primacy of the opinion of the  Chief  Justice  in
regard to the appointment of the President of  the  State  Commission  under
Section 16 of the  Consumer  Protection  Act,  although  I  think  it  would
naturally follow.

72.   In any event, in Kannadasan it was held that for  the  appointment  of
the President of the State Commission, the view of  the  Chief  Justice  was
final and for all intents and purposes decisive, and except for very  cogent
reasons, his recommendation must be accepted. It was held in  paragraph  156
of the Report that:

      “For the appointment as President of the State Commission,  the  Chief
      Justice of the High Court shall have the primacy  and  thus  the  term
      “consultation” even for the  said  purpose  shall  mean  “concurrence”
      only.”




73.   As noted above, the Chief Justice of India or  the  Chief  Justice  of
the  High  Court  is  the  only  constitutional  authority  required  to  be
consulted in the appointment of a Vice  Chairman  or  Member  of  the  State
Administrative Tribunal or the President  of  the  State  Consumer  Disputes
Redressal Commission. In that context, it is quite understandable  that  the
recommendation of the Chief Justice  must  be  accepted,  unless  there  are
strong and cogent reasons for not doing so. The  reasons  would,  naturally,
have to be disclosed to the Chief Justice  as  a  part  of  the  process  of
consultation. It is also quite understandable that the Chief  Justice  would
be the best person to assess the suitability of a person for appointment  to
such a position. But, the situation is rather different in  the  appointment
of an Upa-lokayukta where the constitutional  authorities  to  be  consulted
include not only the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court  but  several
other constitutional authorities as mentioned  in  Section  3(2)(b)  of  the
Act. Can their views be subordinated to the views of the Chief Justice,  and
if so, why?

74.   In this regard, reliance was placed on Justice K.P. Mohapatra  v.  Sri
Ram Chandra Nayak, (2002) 8 SCC 1. In that case, the provisions  of  Section
3 of the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 1999  were  under  consideration.
That Section reads as follows:

      “3. Appointment  of  Lokpal  and  Lokyktas.-(1)  For  the  purpose  of
      conducting investigations in accordance with the  provisions  of  this
      Act, the Governor shall appoint a person to be known as the Lokpal and
      one or more persons to be known as the Lokayukta or Lokayuktas:


      Provided that--

      (a)  the  Lokpal  shall  be  appointed  after  consultation  with  the
      Chief Justice of the High Court  of  Orissa  and  the  Leader  of  the
      Opposition, if there is any;
      (b) the Lokayukta or Lokayuktas shall be appointed after  consultation
      with the Lokpal.

      (2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as—

      (a) (sic) unless he is or has been a Judge of the Supreme Court or  of
      a High Court;
      (b) A Lokayukta unless he is qualified to be a Judge of a High Court.”





75.   This Court took the view  that  primacy  is  to  be  accorded  to  the
opinion of the Chief Justice in the matter  of  appointment  of  the  Lokpal
since his opinion would  be  totally  independent  and  he  would  be  in  a
position to find out who is the most or more suitable for  that  office.  It
was also held that consultation with him is a sine qua non, and if there  is
a Leader of the Opposition then he “is also required to be  consulted”.  But
if there is no Leader of the Opposition, obviously consultation with him  is
not possible. This Court then said, “This  would  indicate  nature  of  such
consultation and which is to apprise him [the Leader of the  Opposition]  of
the proposed action but his opinion  is  not  binding  to  the  Government.”
 With respect, this does not follow. If the law requires  consultation  then
it must take place; whether the opinion expressed  during  the  consultation
process is binding or not is a  different  matter  altogether.   This  Court
went a bit further in Justice Mohapatra and held that though the  Leader  of
the Opposition is entitled to express his views but he  cannot  suggest  any
other name for consideration.

76.   I am afraid, however uncomfortable one may feel about  it,  Section  3
of the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 1999 as I read it, simply does  not
prohibit the Leader of the Opposition from suggesting some  other  name  for
consideration  for  appointment  as  a  Lokpal.  This  restriction  is   not
warranted by the words of the statute and would, even otherwise,  give  that
Section far too restricted a meaning. As concluded in IAS  Association  “The
object of the consultation is to render  consultation  meaningful  to  serve
the intended  purpose.”  Giving  ‘consultation’  a  constricted  meaning  in
Section 3 of the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 1999 would  defeat  this.
It was observed in Maharashtra State Financial Corporation v.  Jaycee  Drugs
and Pharmaceuticals, (1991) 2 SCC 637:

      “It is a settled rule  of  interpretation  of  statutes  that  if  the
      language and words used are plain and unambiguous, full effect must be
      given to them as they stand  and  in  the  garb  of  finding  out  the
      intention of the Legislature no  words  should  be  added  thereto  or
      subtracted therefrom.”







77.   I would, therefore, confine the law laid down in Justice Mohapatra  to
the facts of that case only. In any event, the  view  expressed  in  Justice
Mohapatra is not helpful in interpreting Section 3(2)(b)  of  the  Karnataka
Lokayukta Act, 1984 and I leave the matter at that.

78.   As far as Section  3(2)(b)  of  the  Act  is  concerned,  the  primary
‘responsibility’ for the appointment of the  Upa-Lokayukta  rests  with  the
Chief Minister who has to advice the Governor. 
Since the  Chief  Justice  is
only one of the constitutional authorities required to be consulted  by  the
Chief Minister before advice is tendered to the Governor, it cannot be  said
that only his view would prevail over  the  views  of  other  constitutional
authorities.  
If  that  were  so,  then  (to  rephrase   the   High   Court)
consultation  with  the  other  constitutional  authorities  including   the
Chairman of the Karnataka Legislative Council, the Speaker of the  Karnataka
Legislative Council and the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  in  the  Karnataka
Legislative Council and in  the  Karnataka  Legislative  Assembly  would  be
reduced to a  farce.  
It  must  be  appreciated  that  these  constitutional
authorities also have an equal say in the executive governance of the  State
and there is nothing to suggest that their opinion  should  be  subordinated
to the opinion of the Chief Justice or  that  the  Chief  Justice  can  veto
their views. On the other hand, since it is ultimately  the  Chief  Minister
who has to advice the Governor, it is he alone who has  to  take  the  final
call and shoulder the responsibility of correctly advising the  Governor  in
the matter of appointing the most suitable person as an Upa-lokayukta.

79.   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, I see  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.

Other contentions:

80.   It was submitted that the practice followed  for  the  appointment  of
the Upa-lokayukta in the  present  case  is  the  same  or  similar  to  the
practice followed  in  the  past  and,  therefore,  this  Court  should  not
interfere with the appointment already  made.  
If  at  all  interference  is
called for, the doctrine of ‘prospective overruling’ should be applied.

81.   I am not inclined to accept either contention. 
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.

82.   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:

83.   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.



                                                          ….…….…………………….. J.
                                        (Madan B. Lokur)






New Delhi,
January 11, 2013
-----------------------
 SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013
                                                        Page 118 of 118




No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.