Page 1

1

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

Page 2

2

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.

Page 3

3

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

Page 4

4

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.

Page 5

5

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.

Page 6

6

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

Page 7

7

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

Page 8

8

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

Page 9

9

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

Page 10

10

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

Page 11

11

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.  

Page 12

12

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:

Page 13

13

(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

Page 14

14

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

Page 15

15

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.

Page 16

16

(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?

Page 17

17

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

Page 18

18

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;

Page 19

19

(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

Page 20

20

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

Page 21

21

(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

Page 22

22

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.  

Page 23

23

         (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

Page 24

24

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;

Page 25

25

(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.  

Page 26

26

(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

Page 27

27

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

Page 28

28

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.

Page 29

29

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.

Page 30

30

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,   

Page 31

31

(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

Page 32

32

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:

Page 33

33

(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

Page 34

34

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

Page 35

35

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

Page 36

36

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-

Page 37

37

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

Page 38

38

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

Page 39

39

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

Page 40

40

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

Page 41

41

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

Page 42

42

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

Page 43

43

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:

Page 44

44

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.

Page 45

45

(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

Page 46

46

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

Page 47

47

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.

Page 48

48

(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

Page 49

49

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;

Page 50

50

(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

Page 51

51

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;

Page 52

52

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.

Page 53

53

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

Page 54

54

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

Page 55

55

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

Page 56

56

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

Page 57

57

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

Page 58

58

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

Page 59

59

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

Page 60

60

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

Page 61

61

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:

Page 62

62

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

Page 63

63

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.  

Page 64

64

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

Page 65

65

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.   

Page 66

66

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

Page 67

67

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

Page 68

68

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

Page 69

69

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

Page 70

70

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

Page 71

71

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

Page 72

72

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.  

Page 73

73

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

Page 74

74

Page 75

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.  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 75 of 134

Page 76

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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 76 of 134

Page 77

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

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 77 of 134

Page 78

(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.”

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 78 of 134

Page 79

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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 79 of 134

Page 80

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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 80 of 134

Page 81

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

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 81 of 134

Page 82

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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 82 of 134

Page 83

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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 83 of 134

Page 84

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.

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 84 of 134

Page 85

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.   

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 85 of 134

Page 86

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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 86 of 134

Page 87

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.

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 87 of 134

Page 88

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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 88 of 134

Page 89

‘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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 89 of 134

Page 90

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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 90 of 134

Page 91

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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 91 of 134

Page 92

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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 92 of 134

Page 93

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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 93 of 134

Page 94

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:  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 94 of 134

Page 95

“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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 95 of 134

Page 96

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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 96 of 134

Page 97

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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 97 of 134

Page 98

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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 98 of 134

Page 99

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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 99 of 134

Page 100

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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 100 of 134

Page 101

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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 101 of 134

Page 102

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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 102 of 134

Page 103

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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 103 of 134

Page 104

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.   

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 104 of 134

Page 105

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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 105 of 134

Page 106

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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 106 of 134

Page 107

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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 107 of 134

Page 108

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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 108 of 134

Page 109

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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 109 of 134

Page 110

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—  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 110 of 134

Page 111

(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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 111 of 134

Page 112

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:

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 112 of 134

Page 113

“…  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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 113 of 134

Page 114

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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 114 of 134

Page 115

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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 115 of 134

Page 116

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,  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 116 of 134

Page 117

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.  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 117 of 134

Page 118

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.  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 118 of 134

Page 119

… … … “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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 119 of 134

Page 120

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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 120 of 134

Page 121

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.  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 121 of 134

Page 122

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.

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 122 of 134

Page 123

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.”

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 123 of 134

Page 124

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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 124 of 134

Page 125

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.”  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 125 of 134

Page 126

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?

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 126 of 134

Page 127

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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 127 of 134

Page 128

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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 128 of 134

Page 129

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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 129 of 134

Page 130

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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 130 of 134

Page 131

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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 131 of 134

Page 132

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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 132 of 134

Page 133

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  

SLP(C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos.197-199   of 2013        Page 133 of 134

Page 134

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 134 of 134