Kerala High Court Upholds 2024 Amendment To Kerala Lok Ayukta Act

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (31 March) upheld the amendments made to the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act (KLAA) in 2024. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M delivered the judgment. "We have upheld the constitutionality of the amendments ...but we have said that having regard to Section 12, the provision which has been amended, should be read as deemed acceptance if it is not considered within 90 days..." the Court orally said.The Court delivered the judgment in a batch of writ petitions challenging the amendment of Kerala Lokayukta Act 1999, including the amendment to Section 14. One of the petition was filed by Ramesh Chennithala, MLA from the Congress Party. The petitions challenged the amendments introduced to Section 3 and 14 of the Act. The amendments replaced the term "declaration" with "recommendation" in Lok Ayukta findings; and altered the definition of "competent Authority" making the State Legislative Assemble the authority in cases involving the Chief Minister. It was argued that the amending of the Section 14 of KLAA, the Lok Ayukta and Upa Lok Ayukta have been converted as a body, without any power, in the case of the Chief Minister and Members of Legislative Assembly, as the enforcement of the recommendation made by the Lok Ayukta and Upa Lok Ayukta is at the mercy of the competent authority. It was further argued that the amendments took away the finality of the orders passed by the Lok Ayukta or Upa-Lok Ayukta by vesting power on the State Legislative Assemble and the Speaker of Legislative Assembly to examine the recommendation of the Lok Ayuktha or the Upa-Lok Ayukta. "The impugned amendments are an attempt to weaken the judicial system, by encroaching upon the independence of the judiciary" the respondents submitted. Gopalakrishna Kurup, Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that the State legislature have the legislative competence to enact the impugned amendments. "Lok Ayukta is a creation of the Act. It is well within the legislative domain to alter, amend or vary its powers by way of the impugned amendments. The impugned amendment cannot be, by any stretch of imagination, stated to be against basic structure principle." State submitted. The State further submitted that the function of the Lok Ayukta is investigative in nature and hence the amendment to Section 14 of the Act will not result in executive encroachment into the domain of the judiciary or in Executive becoming the Appellate Authority against the declaration passed by the Lok Ayukta or in the violation of the doctrine of separation of powers. The Court examined the amendments introduced in detail and observed: "The argument that the amendments thus bring about a fundamental alteration in the nature and effective enforceability of the powers of the Lok Ayukta under the KLAA is clearly visible from the amendments itself." The Court noted that the amendments reflect a paradigm shift regarding the nature of enforceability of the reports under the KLAA. It then went on to examine the true nature and character of the Lok Ayukta. The Court observed that in Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi v Employees of the Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi [(1950) SCR 459], the Supreme Court has characterised the Lok Ayukta and Upa-Lokayuta as sui generis quasi-judicial authorities. The Court thus observed that merely because of the fact that the Lok Ayukta follows a procedure resembling adjudication does not ipso facto elevate it to the status of a court or tribunal exercising plenary judicial power. It held that the arguments that amendments violate the domain of a judicial or quasi-judicial authority cannot be accepted. "The submission made by the petitioners that the impugned amendments trench upon the domain of a judicial or quasi - judicial authority cannot be accepted. The amendments were enacted to harmonise the provisions of the Lok Ayukta Act with the constitutional framework, rather than to subvert it. The constitutional scheme relating to Ministers, as embodied in Articles 163 and 164 of the Constitution, makes it abundantly clear that Ministers hold office during the pleasure of the Governor, and their continuance in office cannot be rendered mechanically contingent upon the findings or recommendations of a statutory authority." Court noted. The Court further observed that substitution of a binding declaration with a recommendation, coupled with an obligation on the competent authority to record and communicate reasons cannot be construed as conferring appellate powers on the executive or as an impermissible encroachment into judicial domain. "The impugned amendments do not dilute the independence of the Lok Ayukta, nor do they interfere with the administration of justice. On the contrary, the impugned amendments seek to bring the statutory framework in consonance with the constitutional scheme." Court added. The Court noted that under Section 12 of the Act, the Lok Ayukta would be required to...

Kerala High Court Upholds 2024 Amendment To Kerala Lok Ayukta Act

Anamika MJ

Tags