2013 (1) TMI 748 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether it is for the Chief Minister to advise the Governor for appointment of a Lokayukta after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka, the Chairman of Karnataka Legislative Council, the Speaker of Karnataka Legislative Assembly, the Leader of the Opposition in the Karnataka Legislative Council and the Leader of the Opposition in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly?

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of language of Section 3 in Karnataka Lokayukta Act and Gujarat Lokayukta Act, role of constitutional authorities in consultation process, primacy of Chief Justice's opinion in appointment process.

Interpretation of Language of Section 3:
The judgment discussed the appointment process of Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta under Section 3 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act and the Gujarat Lokayukta Act. It highlighted that in the Karnataka Act, the Chief Minister advises the Governor for appointments after consultation with various authorities, including the Chief Justice. In contrast, the Gujarat Act specifies that the Lokayukta shall be appointed after consultation with the Chief Justice and the Leader of the Opposition. The Court emphasized the different consultation procedures in each Act and concluded that the Chief Justice's role in Gujarat has primacy in the appointment process.

Role of Constitutional Authorities in Consultation Process:
The judgment analyzed the consultation process in various Lokayukta Acts of different states, noting the varied eligibility criteria, selection methods, and consultative procedures. It highlighted that in states like Gujarat, Assam, and Delhi, the Chief Ministers could participate in the process, but the Chief Justices had primacy in the appointment of Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta. The Court emphasized that consultation should be meaningful and effective, with the primacy of opinion vested in the High Court or Chief Justice when appointing individuals for judicial roles.

Primacy of Chief Justice's Opinion:
The judgment compared the provisions of the Karnataka Act and the Orissa Act regarding the consultation process for Lokayukta appointments. It noted that the Orissa Act mandated consultation with the Chief Justice, giving his opinion primacy. However, in the Karnataka Act, the Governor could appoint based on the Chief Minister's advice, with the Chief Justice being one of several consultees. The Court concluded that the Chief Justice's opinion did not have primacy in Karnataka's appointment process, as the statute required the Governor to act on the Chief Minister's advice, not the Chief Justice's opinion.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions, finding no grounds for review as there was no apparent error in the original judgment. The Court emphasized the distinct features of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act and the Gujarat Lokayukta Act, highlighting the different roles of the Chief Minister and Chief Justice in the appointment processes of Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta in the respective states.