SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 2404

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
NITIN JAMDAR, C.J., BASANT BALAJI, J.
Adv. George Pulikuthiyil, (Former Ombudsman, Mgnrega, S/o. Ulahannan Pulikuthiyil - Appellant 
Versus  
State Of Kerala  - Respondent 
WP(C) No. 713 of 2020
Decided on : 01-08-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : ADVS. SRI. ANEESH JAMES,  SRI. AJIT JOY
For the Respondent: ADVS. SMT. O. M. SHALINA, DSG,  SRI. V. TEKCHAND, SR. GP.

The independence of the social audit mechanism under the Mahatma Gandhi NREGA must be preserved, prohibiting members of the Employment Guarantee Council from serving on the Social Audit Society to ensure transparency and accountability.

Headnote:(A) Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 - Sections 12, 13, 24 - Social Audit Rules, 2011 - The petition emphasizes the need for an independent social audit mechanism under the Act, asserting that the inclusion of certain members in both the Social Audit Society and Employment Guarantee Council compromises independence, violating the principles of transparency and accountability. (Paras 1-32)

(B) The court found that the independence of the social audit process must be maintained and directed the State to re-examine the composition of the Social Audit Society to align with statutory provisions for transparency. (Paras 32-34)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a former Ombudsman, alleged that the social audit mechanism is undermined by political appointees and conflicts of interest within the governing bodies, thus seeking a declaration against the current composition of the Social Audit Society.

Findings of Court:
The court recognized the statutory requirement for independence in the social audit process and ordered a review of the current composition of the Social Audit Society.

Issues: The court addressed whether members of the Employment Guarantee Council can be part of the Social Audit Society, thereby compromising its independence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that an independent audit is vital for effective governance, and the presence of overlapping members in both bodies undermines the audit's integrity.

Result: The Writ Petition is disposed of with directions for a committee to review the composition of the Social Audit Society.

JUDGMENT :

Nitin Jamdar, C.J.

This petition, filed in public interest, seeks to emphasise the need to strengthen the social audit mechanism under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, and calls upon the State of Kerala to take proactive measures in that regard.

2. The Petitioner, being one of the first Ombudsman of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act Kerala State Mission, asserts that he has first-hand knowledge of the vulnerabilities and lacunae in the implementation of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Schemes in the State of Kerala and from his experience, he claims that the process of Social Audit of the Schemes is always being undermined by the State by inclusion of those who are not qualified and by those connected with the implementation of the Scheme, nullifying the object of independent Social Audit.

3. The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (Act of 2005) was enacted to improve livelihood security in rural areas. The earlier schemes did not guarantee employment on demand and had a limited reach. The Act of 2005 provides for the establishment of a Central Employment Guarantee Council and State Employment Guarantee Councils to oversee implementation. The National Employment Guarantee Fund is to be created by the Central Government, and State Governments may set up similar funds. The Act of 2005 includes provisions to ensure transparency, regular audits, grievance redressal, and penalties for non-compliance. It also lays down the minimum conditions and entitlements under the scheme. The Act of 2005 confers a statutory right of at least 100 days of wage employment in a financial year to every rural household whose adult members are willing to do unskilled manual work. If employment is not provided within the stipulated period, an unemployment allowance has to be paid. The Act envisions the establishment of large and complex machinery to alleviate rural unemployment, with substantial public funds being expended.

4. The State Employment Guarantee Council is specified under Section 12 of the Act of 2005, which reads as under:-

“12. State Employment Guarantee Council.—(1) For the purposes of regular monitoring and reviewing the implementation of this Act at the State level, every State Government shall constitute a State Council to be known as the......(name of the State) State Employment Guarantee Council with a Chairperson and such number of official members as may be determined by the State Government and not more than fifteen non-official members nominated by the State Government from Panchayati Raj institutions, organisations of workers and disadvantaged groups:

Provided that not less than one-third of the non-official members nominated under this clause shall be women:

Provided further that not less than one third of the non- official members shall be belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, the Other Backward Classes and Minorities.

(2) The terms and conditions subject to which the Chairperson and members of the State Council may be appointed and the time, place and procedure of the meetings (including the quorum at such meetings) of the State Council shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government.

(3) The duties and functions of the State Council shall include—

(a) advising the State Government on all matters concerning the Scheme and its implementation in the State;

(b) determining the preferred works;

(c) reviewing the monitoring and redressal mechanisms from time to time and recommending improvements;

(d) promoting the widest possible dissemination of information about this Act and the Schemes under it;

(e) monitoring the implementation of this Act and the Schemes in the State and coordinating such implementation with the Central Council;

(f) preparing the annual report to be laid before the State Legislature by the State Government;

(g) any other duty or function as may be assigned to it by the Central Coun

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top