IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B. VEERAPPA, K.S. HEMALEKHA, JJ.
Chidananda Urs B.G., S/o Late B.C.Gopalaraj Urs – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka, Represented By Its Secretary – Respondent
Writ Petition No.19386 of 2016 (GM-RES), C of W Writ Petition Nos. 21468, 23622 of 2016,16222, 16223, 16697, 16703, 16862, 28341, 108010, 108689, 108690 of 2017, 22851 of 2018, 9147, 18042 of 2019
Decided on : 11-08-2022
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 2 - Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 17, 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) - KL Act - Section 3 - Maladministration - Appointment of Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta - Appointment of Commission - Superintendence in State Government - Extent of executive power of State - Power to issue, to include power to add to, amend, vary or rescind, notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws - Whether State Government is justified in constituting Anti Corruption Bureau by an executive Government Order, in exercise of powers under Article 162 of Constitution of India, when Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 has occupied field to eradicate corruption in State of Karnataka, in facts and circumstances of present case - Whether State Government is justified in issuing impugned notifications superseding earlier notifications that authorized Lokayukta Police with powers to investigate under provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and had declared offices of Police Wing of Karnataka Lokayukta as Police Stations under provisions of Section 2(s) of Code of Criminal Procedure - Article 36 of ‘United Nations Convention Against Corruption’ relates to specialized authorities and said Article contemplates that each State Party shall, in accordance with fundamental principles of its legal system, ensure existence of a body or bodies or persons specialized in combating corruption through law enforcement (Para 213).
Finding of the Court: Court deem it proper to observe that in order to eradicate corruption, keeping in view object of KL Act and in interest of justice for public at large, Court request constitutional authorities as contemplated under provisions of Section 3(2)(a) and 3(2)(b) of KL Act to take conscious and unanimous decision to recommend persons with track record of integrity, competence and fair, both on public and personal life, to posts of Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas uninfluenced by caste, creed etc., and maintain transparency in appointment. appointment should be non-political and posts of Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta should not be accommodation centre for anybody.
Result: Ordered accordingly.
ORDER :
W.P Nos.19386/2016, 21468/2016, 22370/2016 and 23622/2016 are filed in public interest and the other writ petitions are filed by the individual persons in their personal interest. Now, we shall go through the facts of each of the writ petitions in seriatim.
I. Brief facts of the case
(a) Writ Petition No.21468/2016 (PIL) by AAB:
2. This writ petition is filed by the Advocates Association, Bengaluru in public interest for a writ of certiorari to quash the notifications dated 19.3.2016 vide Annexures – F, G, H and J. By Annexure-F notification, the Government of Karnataka authorized all the Deputy Superintendents of Police, office of the Anti Corruption Bureau (‘ACB’ for short) for the purpose of investigation in consonance with the provisions of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (‘PC Act’ for short). By Annexure-G notification, the Government of Karnataka has superseded the Notification No.HD 286 PEG 90 dated 6.2.1991 with immediate effect. This would mean that the power to investigate any offence under the provisions of the PC Act by the Police Wing of the Karnataka Lokayukta as prescribed under section 17 of the PC Act, is superseded. By Annexure-H notification, the Government of Karnataka, in exercise of the powers under the provisions of Clause (s) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, declared that the office of the ADGP, Anti Corruption Bureau, Bengaluru as Police Station having jurisdiction for the whole of the State of Karnataka. By Annexure-J notification, the Government of Karnataka, in exercise of the powers under the provisions of Clause (s) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has superseded the Notifications NO.HD 292 PEG 2000, dated 8.5.2002 and HD 324 PEG 2002, dated 5.12.2002 with immediate effect. With this notification, the office of the ADGP, Lokayukta would no longer have the effect of that of a Police Station.
3. It is the case of the petitioner/Advocates association that the Association was registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act to cater to the needs and necessities of the Advocates fraternity and office bearers are elected by the enrolled and practicing Lawyers, who are further enrolled as members of the Advocates Association. The petitioner Association has been keenly interested and is actively concerned with the problems of the common man and has actively voiced in various forums and platforms. It is further case of the petitioner that prior to the Karnataka Lokayukta Act,1984 (‘KL Act’ for short) came into force, there used to be a Vigilance Commission to look into the grievances of the people. That in view of more effectively ensuring better administrative action, check the omissions and commissions, cater to the common man, the State Legislature in its endeavour to clean the Augean stables, was pleased to enact KL Act which was intended to be a pro people Act as a self contained mechanism through which the grievances of the people of the State can get effective redressal as also the mischief of the erstwhile Vigilance Commission could also be cured.
4. The Provisions of Section 3 of the KL Act regulates the method of appointment of Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta. A person to be appointed as the Lokayukta shall be a person who has held the office of a Judge of the Supreme Court or that of the Chief Justice of a High Court or a person who has held the office of a Judge of a High Court for not less than ten years and a person to be appointed as a Upa-Lokayukta shall be a person who has held the office of a Judge of a High Court for not less than five years. There would be sufficient number of officers to ensure the effective functioning of the Institution. The State of Karnataka has framed rules for recruitment of the staff in the Lokayukta called Karnataka Lokayukta (Cadre, Recruitment and conditions of service of the officers and employees) Rules, 1988. Rule 3 thereof provides for the strength and composition of the staff of the Lok
Chandrashekaraiah v. Janekere C. Krishna, (2013)3 SCC 117 (paragraphs 20
Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors [(1982)1 SCC 39] (paragraph No.27)
B.N.Nagarajan & others vs. State of Mysore & others [AIR 1966 SC 1942] (paragraph No.5)
Common Cause: A Registered Society vs. Union of India reported in (2017)7 SCC 158
C. Rangaswamaiah and others -vs-Karnataka Lokayukta and others
C.Rangaswamaiah & others vs. Karnataka Lokayukta & others [(1998) 6 SCC 66]: (paragraph No.24)
Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation & another
Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Director, CBI & Another
Dr. D.C. Wadhwa & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors [1987(1) SCC 378] (Paragraph No.7)
I.T.C. Bhadrachalam Paperboards vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, AP
Institution of A.P. Lokayukta Upa-Lokayukta & Others v. T. Rama Subba Reddy & Another
Justice K.P.Mohapatra vs. Sri Ram Chandra Nayak & others
Justice Chandrashekaraiah (Retired) vs. Janekere C.Krishna & others reported in (2013)3 SCC 117
Justice Chandrahekaraiah (Retd.) -vs- Janekere C. Krishna and others
K.T.M.S. MOHD -VS-UNION OF INDIA reported in (1992)3 SCC 178 (paragraph-23).
M.C. Mehta (Taj Corridor Scam) -vs-Union of India and others reported in (2007)1 SCC 110 (paras 24
Mithilesh Kumar Singh -vs-State of Rajasthan and Others reported in (2015)9 SCC 795 (paragraph-6)
Municipal Council, Neemuch v. Mahadeo Real Estate, (2019)10 SCC 738
Northern India Caterers (P) Ltd. v. State of Punjab
Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commr. of Hills Division and Appeals [AIR 1958 SC 398]
Rakesh Kumar Paul -vs-State of Assam reported in (2017) 15 SCC 67 (paragraph-26);
R. Sarala -vs-T.S. Velu and Others reported in (2000) 4 SCC 459 (paragraphs-11 to 15
State of M.P. –vs-Ajay Singh and others
State of Madhya Pradesh -vs-Virender Kumar Tripathi
State of Gujarat and another –vs-Justice R.A. Mehta (Retired) and others
State of Gujarat & others vs. State of Gujarat & others [(2010) 12 SCC 254]
State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha
Subramanian Swamy –vs-Manmohan Singh
State Of Sikkim vs Dorjee Tshering Bhutia And Ors [1991(4) SCC 243 (paragraphs 14 & 15)
Vineet Narain v. Union of India
Vineet Narain -vs-Union of India reported in (1998)1 SCC 226
Object of PC Act is to consolidate and amend law relating to prevention of corruption and matter connected thereto, thereby strengthening of Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta is inevitable and “it is high ....
The State Government did not have the jurisdiction to entrust the inquiry to the Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules because the petitioners were not Government servants within the meaning of ....
Point of law : Report of the Upa-lokayuktha cannot be said to be without jurisdiction and the report made therein by itself does not affect any legal right on the petitioner therein. The action of th....
The doctrine of necessity applies to single-member statutory bodies, permitting the authority to perform functions despite allegations of bias, as the power to make final determinations cannot be del....
Split verdict on Section 17A PC Act: upheld with reading down mandating Lokpal/Lokayukta screening for prior approval; alternatively struck down as violative of Article 14, resurrecting invalid mecha....
The Lokayukta's order should be treated as a recommendation and not an order for institution of the FIR, and the court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings based on sp....
The court ruled that a preliminary inquiry does not require prior notice to a public servant and that the Lok Ayukta can proceed without forwarding a copy of the complaint unless a formal investigati....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.