- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- 'Clear Case Of A Relative Being...
'Clear Case Of A Relative Being Favoured' : Supreme Court Dismisses As Withdrawn Former Kerala Minister KT Jaleel's Petition Challenging Lok Ayukta Report
Shruti Kakkar
1 Oct 2021 6:13 AM GMT
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain the petition filed by former Kerala Minister KT Jaleel challenging the Kerala High Court's verdict which upheld the report of Kerala Lok Ayukta holding him guilty of nepotism and favouritism.Jaleel, who was the Minister for Higher Education and Minority Welfare during the LDF government term of 2016-2021, was found to have breached his oath...
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain the petition filed by former Kerala Minister KT Jaleel challenging the Kerala High Court's verdict which upheld the report of Kerala Lok Ayukta holding him guilty of nepotism and favouritism.
Jaleel, who was the Minister for Higher Education and Minority Welfare during the LDF government term of 2016-2021, was found to have breached his oath of office by giving appointment to his relative Adeeb as General Manager in the Kerala State Minorities Development Finance Corporation Limited by altering the norms. After the report, he had to resign as Minister last April.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai expressed unwillingness to entertain the petition saying that it was a clear case of a relative being favoured.
While admitting that the person in question was related to Jaleel, his counsel Senior Advocate Gopal Shankaranarayanan submitted that the findings were entered without hearing him. He alleged that the complaint was filed after Adeeb initiated proceedings against members of the rival Muslim League party for recovery of arrears from NPA accounts. The complaint was filed at the instance of Muslim League party, which was aggrieved with the recovery actions. He said that Adeeb resigned within a month after the controversy. The additional qualifications introduced in the appointment norms, to which the Lok Ayukta took objection, was approved by the Government. The rival party which filed the complaint before the Lok Ayuktha had earlier filed a complaint before the Governor which was rejected, and had also filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was withdrawn.
Shankaranarayanan urged the bench to at least remand the matter so that Jaleel can demonstrate on facts why the findings were wrong.
"We could have considered if it was a case of vague or ambiguous allegations. But it is a clear case of a relative being favoured..if he was not related, we could have heard you on so many other things", Justice L Nageswara Rao told Shankaran
The bench expressed that it was not inclined and said that they are dismissing the petition. At this juncture, Shankaranarayanan sought permission to withdraw the petition.
Accordingly, the special leave petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
A division bench comprising Justices PB Suresh Kumar and K Babu on April 20, 2021 had 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 these 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.
Findings of Report of the Kerala Lok Ayukta
Finding K T Jaleel, Minister for Higher Education and Minority Welfare, guilty of nepotism, abuse of power and favouritism, Kerala Lok Ayukta had held that Jaleel violated his oath of office by giving government appointment to his second cousin by altering norms.
Significantly, the Lok Ayukta had 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 had 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 conduct of the 2nd respondent also violated the oath of the office he had taken as a Minister to discharge his duties"without fear or favour, affection or ill-will", the order passed by the bench of Justices Cyriac Joseph(former Supreme Court judge) and Harun-Ul-Rashid (former High Court judge) held.
Background
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. It ordered that the report be submitted before the Chief Minister for taking necessary action as per Section 14 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act.
Case Title: Dr K T Jaleel v. V K Muhammed Shafi & Ors.
Click Here To Read/ Download Order
