PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash G.O.Ms.No.84 of 2020 as ultra vires and consequently direct the 1st to 3rd respondents, to take effective steps towards the implementation of the Tamilnadu Lokayukta Act, 2018 and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder, in letter and spirit and to take appropriate action as required.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Velmurugan

For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Arjun Suresh Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.L.Gokulraj Addl Government Pleader

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

This Public Interest Litigation has been filed by a practising advocate seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records and quash Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.84, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N.Spl.) Department, dated 21.7.2020. Consequentially, the petitioner seeks directions to the State of Tamil Nadu to strictly implement the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Act, 2018 (Act 33 of 2018) and the statutory rules and regulations framed thereunder.

2. The core factual matrix of the case centers on the statutory architecture governing the Tamil Nadu Lokayukta. The Parliament enacted the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (Central Act 1 of 2014), wherein Section 63 mandated every State Legislature to establish an independent anti-corruption body within one year. Pursuant to this mandate, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly enacted the Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Act, 2018, which came into force on 13.11.2018. Simultaneously, the State Government framed the Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Rules, 2018 under Section 44 of the Act. The Lokayukta officially commenced its operational mandate on 21.4.2019.

3. On 21.7.2020, the State Government issued the impugned Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.84, amending Schedule-II of Rule 18 of the Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Rules, 2018. The amendment substituted the method of recruitment for the post of “Secretary” and “Registrar” of the Lokayukta. Specifically, for the post of “Secretary”, it enabled appointment either by transfer from Secretariat officers holding the rank of Additional Secretary, Joint Secretary, or Deputy Secretary, or by deputation/ re-employment/ contract of a serving or retired District Judge from the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that G.O.Ms.No.84 is ultra vires Section 9(1) of the parent Act. It was submitted that Section 9(1) of the Act prescribes that the Secretary shall be an officer “not below the rank of Deputy Secretary to Government”, which according to the petitioner, restricts the eligibility exclusively to executive administrative officers from the Secretariat services. He argued that by expanding the eligibility pool to include serving and retired District Judges, the executive exceeded its delegated rule-making power under Section 44 of the Act.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents, submitted that Section 9(1) of the Act prescribes only the minimum threshold of rank and status, viz., “not below the rank of Deputy Secretary”. District Judges indisputably hold a rank, status and judicial pedigree superior not below the rank of the Deputy Secretary to the Government. He submitted that given the quasi-judicial nature of the duties of Lokayukta, including conducting court litigation, briefing law officers, interacting with police investigative wings, and managing judicial registries, judicial background is highly beneficial. Furthermore, he raised a preliminary objection regarding severe delay and laches, pointing out that the impugned government order was issued in July 2020, whereas the writ petition was filed six years later in June 2026 without any plausible explanation.

6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced by counsel on both sides a