9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Interpretation of the term 'consultation' under Section 3(1) of the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 1995. Analysis: The judgment in this case revolves around the interpretation of the term 'consultation' as prescribed under Section 3(1) of the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 1995. The central issue is whether the consultation process for appointing a Lokpal requires real, full, and effective engagement among the Governor, Chief Justice of the High Court of Orissa, and the Leader of the Opposition, if present. The High Court of Orissa had set aside the appointment of a retired Judge as Lokpal due to lack of effective consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. The facts of the case reveal that the Chief Minister of Orissa initiated the consultation process by seeking the opinions of the Chief Justice and the Leader of the Opposition regarding the appointment of the Lokpal. The Chief Justice recommended the appellant's appointment, while the Leader of the Opposition suggested another candidate, emphasizing the need for a reputed judicial personality with specific qualities. Subsequently, the Government appointed the appellant as Lokpal without further engaging with the Leader of the Opposition's suggestion. The key contention raised by the appellant was that the Chief Justice's opinion should hold primacy in the consultation process, and the Leader of the Opposition's views should not override the government's decision unless there are substantial objections to the proposed candidate. The State also supported this argument, emphasizing that the essential qualifications of the appellant were not in dispute, and the Leader of the Opposition did not express any reservations about the appellant's suitability for the position. The interpretation of the term 'consultation' was analyzed in light of the Act's objectives and provisions. It was highlighted that the consultation with the Chief Justice is crucial, given the nature of the Lokpal's role and the qualifications required for the position. The consultation with the Leader of the Opposition was deemed informative, allowing for objections or alternative suggestions but not binding on the government for the appointment decision. Referring to a previous judgment, the Court emphasized that consultation involves a meaningful exchange of views, with the proposer retaining the discretion to accept or reject suggestions. In the context of the Lokpal appointment, the Chief Justice's opinion was deemed mandatory, while the Leader of the Opposition's input was advisory and not directive. In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal, quashing the High Court's judgment that invalidated the appellant's appointment as Lokpal. The judgment affirmed the primacy of the Chief Justice's opinion in the consultation process and clarified the consultative roles of the Chief Justice and the Leader of the Opposition in the appointment of a Lokpal under the Act.
|
