Needless Deterrent Action Against Complainants Will Discourage Them From Bringing Grievances Against Public Authorities Before Lok Ayukta: Kerala HC

In the facts of the case, the petitioner filed a complaint alleging financial misdemeanour and illegal accumulation of properties against the President of the Indira Gandhi Co-operative Hospital in Kannur district.

Upon dismissal of the complaint by Lok Ayukta, application was filed seeking sanction to prosecute the complainant under Section 21 for filing false compliant. Lok Ayukta allowed the application and granted sanction to proceed against the complainant for allegedly filing false complaint.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu observed thus:

“The Act of 1999 is an Act that provides for conducting enquiries into any action, omission, or commission by the Authorities specified under the Act, to bring about transparency and accountability in the administration of such bodies. The Lok Ayukta, upon being informed of such illegalities, has the power to make recommendations to the State Government. This being an important remedy available to citizens to bring their grievances against the officers of the State and other public bodies, the Lok Ayukta, while exercising its power, has to ensure that this remedy is not rendered illusory. If needless deterrent actions are taken against complainants, it will discourage the parties from bringing their grievances against public authorities before the Lok Ayukta.”

Notably, under Section 21 (1) of the Act, lodging false complaint with malicious intention is punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than three months which may extend up to six months, along with a fine. Section 21 (3) stipulates that no cognizance of offence will be taken unless the compliant is made by the person against whom false, frivolous or vexatious complaint was made. It is also stated that no court shall take cognizance of offence without the sanction of the Lok Ayukta.

The Court observed that there are no parameters provided under Section 21 of the Act regarding grant of sanction by Lok Ayukta. The Court stated that this would not mean that every complaint dismissed by the Lok Ayukta must attract prosecution under Section 21.

The Court stated that complaints dismissed due to lack of evidence do not warrant prosecution under Section 21, as they differ from false complaints filed with malicious intent. The Court further clarified that if sanction is granted for prosecution, Lok Ayukta must give reasons for giving sanction.

Court said, “The words 'false complaint' and 'malicious intention' used in Section 21(1) provide an indication as to how the power under Section 21(1) is to be used. Dismissal of a complaint due to lack of evidence is different from the complaints that are false and malicious. It is not necessary for the Lok Ayukta to write a detailed judgment while granting permission, however, the reasons must be apparent from the record, or in the order dismissing the complaint as to why it is with a malicious intention.”

In the facts of the case, the Court noted that the Petitioner failed to substantiate the allegations made in his compliant against the 3^rd respondent. However, the Court stated that the compliant of the Petitioner cannot be construed as false and malicious.

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and the Court set aside the application seeking sanction to prosecute the Petitioner under Section 21.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate Kaleeswaram Raj

Counsel for Respondents: Advocates J Harikumar, M Sasindran, Joggy Mathunni, Standing Counsel Renu DP,

Case Title: T K Pavithran v Kerala Lok Ayukta

Case No: WP(C) NO.36370 OF 2008

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 183

Click here to read/download Judgment