Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 32969
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S.MANIKUMAR, CJ, Murali Purushothaman, J
PANNYAN RAVEENDRAN – Appellant
Versus
SHAMNAD A – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 34224 OF 2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN (SR.), SMT.P.R.REENA
For the Respondents: SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, SRI.J.HARIKUMAR
The selection of candidates by political parties is not an administrative action subject to investigation by the Kerala Lok Ayukta as it does not involve public duty nor constitutes maladministration.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 - Sections 2(o)(ix), 7 - Investigation by Lok Ayukta into selection of candidates by political parties - Complaint filed alleging corruption and maladministration in candidature selection dismissed; the Court held that selection of candidates is not subject to Lok Ayukta jurisdiction as it does not fall under specified legislative matters. (Paras 4, 17, 21)
(B) Political Parties - Jurisdiction - Political parties' internal decisions regarding candidate selection are not administrative actions and hence outside the Lok Ayukta's purview. (Paras 18, 21)
Facts of the case:
A complaint was filed against office bearers of a political party regarding the selection of candidates for elections be made without corruption. The Lok Ayukta deemed the complaint maintainable, leading to a petition challenging this jurisdiction.
Findings of Court:
The selection of candidates by political parties does not constitute an investigative basis for Lok Ayukta, as it lacks a public duty element, thus making the complaint unmaintainable.
Issues: The main issues address whether candidate selection by political parties falls under the Lok Ayukta's jurisdiction and the definitions of public servant and maladministration as per the Lok Ayukta Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that candidate selection by political parties does not constitute a public function under the Lok Ayukta Act and hence the Lok Ayukta lacks jurisdiction to investigate such matters.
Result: Writ petition allowed, orders of Lok Ayukta set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. investigation by lok ayukta on election candidacy (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. maintainability of complaint regarding internal party matters (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. jurisdiction of lok ayukta over internal political party actions (Para 6 , 16) |
| 4. definitions of action, allegation, and maladministration (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. political parties' discretion in candidate selection (Para 18 , 19 , 21) |
JUDGMENT
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 1 st 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 4 th 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 4 th respondent to contest as Left Democratic Front (LDF) candidate for election to the 16 th 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 1 st 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
