Congress Leader Ramesh Chennithala Moves High Court Challenging Constitutional Validity of Provisions Of Kerala Lok Ayukta (Amendment) Act, 2022

The plea will be heard by the division bench comprising Chief Justice A J Desai and Justice V G Arun on May 27, 2024 (Monday).

The plea specifically challenges the amendment made to Sections 2, 3 and 14 of the Act and alleges that the amendment interferes with the administration of justice and is against the separation of powers.

The plea states that the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act was enacted for the purification of public life of public servants, vast powers have been conferred upon the Lok Ayukta or Upa-Lok Ayukta and that they function as an independent judicial forum.

The plea stated that the unamended Section 14 of the Act provided for public servants to vacate the office if directed by the Lok Ayukta or Upa-Lok Ayukta. It means that if a finding is returned by Lok Ayuka or Upa- Lok Ayukta on an investigation of the complaint that the public servant has abused his position, then Lok Ayuka or Upa- Lok Ayukta can make a declaration that the public servant should not continue in his post.

The plea stated that Lok Ayukta is a creature of statute intending to prevent corruption among public servants and enjoys all the powers of a 'Court' including the power to make a declaration to a public servant to vacate his office under Section 14.

It is stated that the amended Section 14 of the Act makes the executive (Government/Chief Minister) the appellate authority against the declaration passed by the Lok Ayukta or Upa-Lok Ayukta. It is alleged that the amendment is made by insertion of Section 14 (1) and (2), whereby a competent authority is given the power to accept or reject the declaration made by the Lok Ayukta or Upa- Lok Ayukta after giving the public servant an opportunity of hearing.

The plea submitted that the amendment made to Section 14 of the Act curtails and annuls the power of the Lok Ayukta or Upa- Lok Ayukta by giving the competent authority an appellate power over the declaration made by the Lok Ayukta or Upa- Lok Ayukta.

Thus, the plea alleged that earlier the competent authority was obliged to accept and act upon the declaration made by the Lok Ayukta or Upa- Lok Ayukta giving it the powers of a Court, but now it can accept or reject the declaration thus taking away its powers.

It is stated that before the amendment, the competent authority for the Chief Minister, Member of State Legislature, or office bearer of a political party was the Governor. It is stated that after amendment to Section 2 of the Act, the competent authority for the Minister or Secretary is the Chief Minister. Further, the plea states that the competent authority for a Member of the State Legislature is the Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly.

Further, the plea also challenges the amendments made to Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 pertains to the appointment of Lok Ayukta and Upa-Lok Ayuktas. As per the unamended Section 3, a person who has held the office of a Judge of the Supreme Court or that of a Chief Justice of the High Court shall be appointed as the Lok Ayukta. The plea states that the amendment to Section 3 permits the judge of the High Court to be appointed as the Lok Ayukta.

“The amendment now introduced, the contingency of appointing a retired judge of the High Court, who had only a shorter tenure and who held the office as a judge of the High Court with perceived political philosophy cannot be avoided and thereby questioning the very significance of the office of the Lok Ayukta. Hence the provision for appointing retired judge as Lok Ayukta, other than retired chief Justice of the High Court is in fact and in reality, downgrading the office of the Lok Ayukta System”, stated the plea.

The plea thus states that the amendments are against the concept of separation of powers envisaged under the Constitution and are against the independence of the judiciary.

Section 14 of the Amendment Act was previously also challenged in the High Court alleging that it nullifies judicial power of Lok Ayukta or Upa Lok Ayukta. 

The plea has been moved by Senior Advocate George Poonthottam, Advocates Nisha George, A.L.Navaneeth Krishnan, Ann Maria Francis, Reginald Valsalan, Anshin K.K, Namita Philson, Kavya Varma M. M., Sidharth.R.Wariyar, Fathima Amreen Jamal

Case Title: Ramesh Chennithala M.L.A. v State of Kerala

Case Number: WP(C) 18749/2024