BREAKING: Kerala High Court Dismisses Ex-Minister KT Jaleel's Challenge Against Lok Ayukta Report

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday dismissed the writ petition filed by former Minister for Higher Education and Minority Welfare KT Jaleel, challenging a report of the Kerala Lok Ayukta which had found him guilty of nepotism and favouritism.A division bench comprising Justices PB Suresh Kumar and K Babu affirmed the Lok Ayukta report, stating that Jaleel had not made out any ground for interference in the final opinion formulated by the Lok Ayukta in this proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.Finding that the Lok Ayukta had acted within the scope of its powers when it arrived at its conclusion, the Court emphasized that only errors of fact which had a direct nexus with the decision-making process could be interfered with, rather than an error that affected the merit."..this being a proceedings for judicial review, the court could examine an error of fact touching the merit of decision only if it has a direct nexus to the decision making process. Be that as it may, the formation of an opinion on the facts is a subjective matter and if an opinion is formed based on the relevant materials, so long as the authority was acting within the scope of its powers, however meagre the materials be, the courts should not and will not interfere with the opinion formed in exercise of judicial review," the Division Bench held.The Lok Ayukta had declared that Jaleel was unfit to continue as a Minister for violation of his oath of office. The matter related to the appointment of Jaleel's cousin KT Adeeb as General Manager in the Kerala State Minorities Development Finance Corporation Limited.The Lok Ayukta found that Jaleel took a decision as a Minister to change the qualifications for the post to add "B.Tech with PGDBA" to make his relative eligible. This decision was without any proposal or suggestion from the Corporation. But for this change of qualification, Adeeb would not have been eligible to apply for the post. The Lok Ayukta held that it amounted to an abuse of the Minister's position. The Authority also made a declaration under Section 12(3) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act that Jaleel should not continue as a Member of the Council of Ministers. Such a declaration has to be accepted by the Chief Minister under Section 14 of the Act. On acceptance by the Chief Minister, the Minister has to resign from the office as per Section 14(2)(i) of the Act."The action of the 2nd respondent(Jaleel) was actuated in discharge of his function as a Minster by personal interest to favour his own second cousin. It amounted to favouritism and nepotism and lack of integrity in his capacity as a Minister, the Lok Ayukta's Report had held.The conduct of the 2nd respondent also violated the oath of office he had taken as a Minister to discharge his duties as a Minister "without fear or favour, affection or ill-will"", the order passed by a bench of Justices Cyriac Joseph(former Supreme Court judge) and Harun-Ul-Rashid (former High Court judge) held.Jaleel's appeal primarily challenged Paragraph 54 of the said Report, wherein the Lok Ayukta comprising Justices Cyriac Joseph (former Supreme Court judge) and Harun-Ul-Rashid (former High Court judge) concluded that that Jaleel should not continue as a Member of the Council of Ministers on account of the charges against him. Charging the final report as one having been made without following any procedure mandated under law to arrive at a finding, Jaleel's plea asserted that the same is violative of natural justice as well as the statutory provisions of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, and therefore one liable to be interfered with by the Court.On this count, the Court observed that the petitioner had not rebutted the facts that were recorded by the Lok Ayukta in the report, and that these formed the basis for the finding against him. Apart from this, the petitioner was given opportunities to rebut and present his submissions before the complaint was admitted, the Court found."Similarly, the fact that the Lok Ayukta has afforded the petitioner an opportunity to offer his comments on the complaint is also not disputed by the petitioner. Insofar as the requirements in sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Act have been complied with by the Lok Ayukta even before the admission of the complaint and in the absence of any prejudice caused to the petitioner for not repeating the same process after the complaint is admitted, according to us, the omission on the part of the Lok Ayukta in not complying with the provisions contained in sub-section(3) of Section of the Act after the admission of the complaint is not a ground to impugn the report in this proceedings, for every error committed in the decision making process will not have the effect of vitiating the decision and for the decision to be vitiated, it shall be demonstrated that the error in the making of the decision has affected the decision. In the case on hand, the petitioner has no case that the decision of the Lok Ayukta is...

BREAKING: Kerala High Court Dismisses Ex-Minister KT Jaleel's Challenge Against Lok Ayukta Report

Lydia Suzanne Thomas

Tags