Page 1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (C) NO(S). 362-363 OF 2013 IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8814-8815 OF 2012

STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.  PETITIONER (S)  VERSUS

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE (RETD) RAMESH AMRITLAL MEHTA & ORS.  RESPONDENT (S)  

O R D E R

1. The  original  appellants  in  Civil  Appeal  Nos.8814-

8815/2012  have  filed  the  present  review  petitions  

seeking review of our judgment dated 02.01.2013.

2. We bestowed our serious consideration to the various  

grounds raised in the review petition.  On a detailed  

reading of the grounds, it is quite apparent that the  

provocation  for  filing  these  review  petitions  is  

mainly the subsequent decision of this Court in the  

case  of  Mr.  Justice  Chandrashekaraiah  (Retd.)  v.  Janekere C. Krishna & Ors. dated 11.01.2013 in Civil  Appeal Nos.197-199 of 2013 @ SLP (C) Nos.15658-15660  of 2012 which related to appointment of Upa-Lokayukta  under Section 3 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984.  

     Review Petition (C) Nos.362-363 of 2013       1 of 12       In Civil Appeal Nos.8814-8815 of 2012

Page 2

In  the  said  judgment,  the  judgment  under  review  

reported as State of Gujarat v. Hon’ble Mr. Justice  R.A. Mehta (Retd.) - 2013 (1) SCALE 7 was also noted  and the clear distinction as between Section 3 of the  

Karnataka Lokayukta Act and Section 3(1) of Gujarat  

Lokayukta Act, 1986 was spelt out.

3. By  referring  to  the  above  later  decision  in  the  

forefront,  the  sum  and  substance  of  the  grounds  

raised for review herein is three-fold, namely,

1) there is divergence of views taken by  this  Court  in  the  impugned  judgment  and in the later judgment as regards  the  interpretation  of  language  of  Section 3 in both the legislations,  

2) the  role  of  the  constitutional  authorities  involved  in  the  consultation process and;  

3) regarding primacy of the opinion of  the Chief Justice vis-à-vis the Chief  Minister of the concerned State.

4. At the very outset we find that none of the above  

grounds have any substance. Since, we find the whole  

basis  for  the  review  by  relying  upon  the  later  

judgment  of  this  Court,  it  will  be  necessary  to  

     Review Petition (C) Nos.362-363 of 2013       2 of 12       In Civil Appeal Nos.8814-8815 of 2012

Page 3

highlight  the  clear  distinction  as  between  the  

judgment under review and the said later decision of  

this Court.  

5. The  later  decision  of  this  Court  considered  the  

question about the primacy of the views expressed by  

the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka in  

making appointment to the post of Lokayukta and Upa-

Lokayukta by the Governor of Karnataka in exercise of  

power conferred on him under Section 3(2)(a) and (b)  

of  the  Karnataka  Lokayukta  Act,  1984  (hereinafter  

called  as  “Karnataka  Act”).  Section  3  of  the  

Karnataka Act reads as under:

“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  

     Review Petition (C) Nos.362-363 of 2013       3 of 12       In Civil Appeal Nos.8814-8815 of 2012

Page 4

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.

(Emphasis added) (3)xxxxxxxxxx

6. A reading of the sub-clauses 2(a)&(b) disclose that  

it is for the Chief Minister to advise the Governor  

for  appointment  of  a  Lokayukta  after  consultation  

with  the  Chief  Justice  of  the  High  Court  of  

Karnataka,  the  Chairman  of  Karnataka  Legislative  

Council,  the  Speaker  of  Karnataka  Legislative  

Assembly,  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  in  the  

Karnataka Legislative Council and the Leader of the  

     Review Petition (C) Nos.362-363 of 2013       4 of 12       In Civil Appeal Nos.8814-8815 of 2012

Page 5

Opposition  in  the  Karnataka  Legislative  Assembly.  

While, as per the provision itself, it is for the  

Chief Minister to advice the Governor, the collegium  

for consultation consists of as many as five other  

members,  including  the  Chief  Justice  of  the  High  

Court. The same is the procedure for appointment of  

Upa-Lokayukta under Section 3(2)(b) of the Karnataka  

Act.  

7. In  the  later  judgment  of  this  Court,  the  above  

statutory stipulation, about the primary role to be  

played by the Chief Minister in advising the Governor  

and the collegium of consultation to be made, has  

been  specifically  discussed  and  concluded  to  the  

following effect in paragraph 37:

“……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.”

     Review Petition (C) Nos.362-363 of 2013       5 of 12       In Civil Appeal Nos.8814-8815 of 2012

Page 6

8. As far as the Gujarat Lokayukta Act is concerned, the  

proviso to Section 3(1) of the Gujarat Lokayukta Act  

is relevant which is to the following effect:

“3(1)  For  the  purpose  of  conducting  investigations  in  accordance  with  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  Articles 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  the  Opposition  in  that  House  in  such  manner  as  the  Speaker may direct.”  

   (Emphasis added)

9. In the light of the specific stipulations contained  

in the proviso, it was held in the impugned judgment  

that Section 3(1) read along with proviso envisages  

the appointment of Lokayukta by the Governor based on  

the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers after  

     Review Petition (C) Nos.362-363 of 2013       6 of 12       In Civil Appeal Nos.8814-8815 of 2012

Page 7

consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court  

of Gujarat who in turn to consult with the Leader of  

Opposition, if the Assembly is in position and in its  

absence even such consultation by the Chief Justice  

with the Leader of Opposition is also dispensed with.  

10. This  distinction,  as  between  the  

Karnataka Act and Gujarat Act, was specifically noted  

in the later judgment in paragraph 48, which is to  

the following effect:

“……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.”

11. The  later  judgment  has  also  considered  

similar such provisions contained in Andhra Pradesh  

     Review Petition (C) Nos.362-363 of 2013       7 of 12       In Civil Appeal Nos.8814-8815 of 2012

Page 8

Lokayukta Act, 1983, Assam Lokayukta and Upalokayukta  

Act 1985, Bihar Lokayukta Act 1973, Chhattisgarh Lok  

Aayog  Adhyadesh,  2002,  Delhi  Lokayukta  and  Upa-

Lokayukta  Act  1995,  Gujarat  Lokayukta  Act  1986,  

Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001, Haryana Lokayukta Act,  

2002 and Kerala Lokayukta Act, 1999 and held that  

each  State  has  adopted  different  eligibility  

criteria,  method  of  selection,  consultative  

procedures  etc.,  in  the  matter  of  appointment  of  

Lokayuktas  and  Upa-Lokayuktas  in  their  respective  

States.  

12. Apart  from  referring  to  the  similar  

provisions relating to appointment of Lokayukta in  

the above referred to enactments, the later judgment  

also noted that in the States of Assam, Delhi and in  

particular  Gujarat,  the  Chief  Ministers  can  

participate in the process and could express their  

views and that the Chief Justices of the respective  

High  Courts  alone  have  PRIMACY  in  the  matter  of  

appointment of Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta. It was  

further  noted  that  while  in  the  States  of  

     Review Petition (C) Nos.362-363 of 2013       8 of 12       In Civil Appeal Nos.8814-8815 of 2012

Page 9

Chhattisgarh, Haryana etc., the appointment is made  

by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister  

while in the State of Kerala under the Act the Chief  

Justice  is  not  even  a  consultee  at  all.  It,  

therefore, concluded as under in paragraph 48:

“……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.”

13. As regards the process of consultation,  

it  was  again  held  in  the  later  judgment  that  

consultation  is  not  a  formality  but  should  be  

meaningful,  effective  and  primacy  of  opinion  is  

always  vested  with  the  High  Court  or  the  Chief  

Justice of the State High Court or the collegium of  

the Supreme Court or the Chief Justice of India, as  

the case may be, when a person has to hold a judicial  

office  and  discharge  functions  akin  to  judicial  

functions.  

14. After holding so, by referring to Section  

3(1) of the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act which is  

     Review Petition (C) Nos.362-363 of 2013       9 of 12       In Civil Appeal Nos.8814-8815 of 2012

Page 10

in pari materia with the Gujarat Act, this Court by  

making specific reference to the decision which came  

up to this Court in Justice K.P. Mohapatra v. Sri Ram  Chandra Nayak and Ors. - (2002) 8 SCC 1 has held as  under in paragraph 57:

“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.”

(Emphasis added)

     Review Petition (C) Nos.362-363 of 2013       10 of 12       In Civil Appeal Nos.8814-8815 of 2012

Page 11

15. In the light of the clear distinction in  

Section 3(2)(a) and (b) of the Karnataka Act and the  

Orissa Act, it was held that the judgment of this  

Court  in  K.P.  Mohapatra  (supra)  was  inapplicable  while construing the provisions of the Karnataka Act,  

since, the language employed are not pari materia. It  

will be appropriate to state that the provisions of  

the Gujarat Act and the Orissa Act are identical in  

so far as it related to the consultation process is  

concerned and, therefore, it was categorically held  

that the role of the Chief Justice was primary by  

virtue of the specific provision contained in the  

Act. In the light of  specific provision contained in  

Section 3(2)(a) and (b) of the Karnataka Act in the  

later judgment, it was held as under in paragraph 62:

“Section  3(2)(a)  and  (b)  when  read  literally and contextually admits of  no  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  

     Review Petition (C) Nos.362-363 of 2013       11 of 12       In Civil Appeal Nos.8814-8815 of 2012

Page 12

expressed by the Chief Justice or any  of the consultees.”

16. In  the  light  of  the  above  distinctive  

features in the Karnataka Act and in the Gujarat Act  

which have been clearly spelt out in the impugned  

judgment  under  review  and  in  the  judgment  of  Mr.  Justice Chandrashekaraiah (Retd.) (supra), the ground  raised  in  these  review  petitions  which  have  been  

dealt with in detail in the judgment under review and  

concluded  by  adducing  adequate  reasons,  we  are  

convinced that no case for review is made out and  

there is no apparent error in the impugned judgment.  

These review petitions are, therefore, dismissed.  

……………………………………………………………………………J.           (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)

……………………………………………………………………………J. (FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA)

NEW DELHI MARCH 14, 2013

     Review Petition (C) Nos.362-363 of 2013       12 of 12       In Civil Appeal Nos.8814-8815 of 2012