Back
2023 Supreme(Ker) 262
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S. MANIKUMAR, MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, JJ.
PANNYAN RAVEENDRAN S/O RAMAN – Petitioner
Versus
SHAMNAD A. S/O ABDUL RAHIMAN – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 34224 of 2014
Decided On : 23-03-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: RENJITH THAMPAN, P.R. REENA.
For the Respondents: GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, J. HARIKUMAR, NISHA GEORGE.
Point of Law: Section 7 deals with matters which may be investigated by the Lok Ayukta.
Headnote:
Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 - Section 16(3), 2 (o) (ix), (m), (k), 7, (1) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 21 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 2 (c) - Lok Ayukta - Contesting election - Political parties - Selection of candidates - Whether Kerala Lok Ayukta can investigate into matters relating to selection of candidates by political parties for contesting election - Electorate in India has no role in selection of candidates or setting up of candidates at elections.
Findings of the Court:
It is an internal affair of political party and party selects its candidates as per constitution of party, political principles, policies, winnability etc - Once candidate is set up by political party, then, on date of poll, public exercise their electoral right for any of candidates in fray - Therefore, Court is unable to subscribe to view of Lok Ayukta that selection of candidate by a political party is a matter in which public or community at large has an interest - Court is in complete agreement with view taken by learned single Judge in Anil Thomas (supra) - Political party is not required to perform any public duty in selection of candidates to contest election - Court have already found that selection of candidates by political party or its office bearers for election to Parliament is not a matter subject to investigation by Lok Ayukta - Ext.P2 complaint before Lok Ayukta does not reveal any allegation or grievance in consequence of maladministration - Lok Ayukta has no jurisdiction to entertain Ext.P2 complaint - It is declared so. Exts.P3 and P4 orders are set aside.
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.
1. The question we are called upon to consider in this writ petition is as to whether the Kerala Lok Ayukta can investigate into matters relating to selection of candidates by political parties for contesting election.
2. The 1st respondent, who claims to be a social and political worker, filed Ext.P2 complaint before the Kerala Lok Ayukta (hereinafter referred to as ‘Lok Ayukta’ for short) contending that, on receiving illegal gratification from Dr.Bennet Abraham, the 4th respondent in the complaint, respondents 1 to 3 therein, who are office bearers of Communist Party of India (CPI), hatched a conspiracy between them and gave candidature to the 4th respondent to contest as Left Democratic Front (LDF) candidate for election to the 16th Lok Sabha from Thiruvananthapuram constituency.
3. While considering the complaint for preliminary enquiry and admission, the Lok Ayukta observed that, if the allegations levelled by the complainant against the respondents therein are proved, their actions would amount not only to corruption but also to maladministration. Holding that Ext.P2 complaint is maintainable before that forum, the Lok Ayukta passed Ext.P3 order deciding to conduct an investigation into the allegations in the complaint and, invoking the powers under Section 16(3) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Lok Ayukta Act), entrusted a senior police officer of the State to conduct the enquiry.
4. On coming to know about Ext.P3 order, the petitioner herein, who is the State Secretary of CPI and the 1st respondent in Ext.P2 complaint, filed I.A. Nos. 1283/2014 and 1284/2014 before the Lok Ayukta requesting to hear the question of maintainability of Ext.P2 complaint and to recall Ext.P3 order. It was contended, inter-alia that, respondents 2 and 3 in the complaint being National Executive and State Executive members of the political party would not come within the ambit of public servant under Section 2 (o) (ix) of the Lok Ayukta Act, and the selection of candidates for election is an internal private matter of the political party and the decision to confer candidature is a policy decision of the party which cannot be investigated by the Lok Ayukta.
5. The Lok Ayukta heard the question regarding maintainability of Ext.P2 complaint and by Ext.P4 order, found that the complaint is maintainable before the said forum. The Lok Ayukta observed that, by virtue of Section 2(o)(ix) of the Lok Ayukta Act, the State Secretary of the political party, the petitioner herein, is a public servant and he performs public duty in selecting candidates and that when the reputation of the party has been tarnished on account of the allegations involved in the complaint, the Lok Ayukta is statutorily bound to enquire into the truth or otherwise of the allegations of corruption and maladministration against the State and District level office bearers of political parties and they cannot avoid the complaint taking shelter under the indoor management of its own affairs as a political party. Challenging Exts.P3 and P4 orders of the Lok Ayukta, this writ petition is filed. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that Ext.P2 complaint is not maintainable before the Lok Ayukta.
6. According to the petitioner, the Lok Ayukta has no jurisdiction to investigate into the internal affairs of a political party. It is contended that selection of candidates at election is not an administrative function and would not amount to ‘maladministration’ and that the complainant has not sustained injustice or undue hardship in consequence of maladministration and there is no scope for investigation under Section 7 of the Lok Ayukta Act. Referring to the preamble of the Lok Ayukta Act, it is contended that the action complained of should be action taken by public servants relatable to matters specified in List II or List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and the action complained of before
