HC upholds amendments to Lok Ayukta Act, turns down challenge by Chennithala

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday passed an order upholding amendments to the Lok Ayukta Act, while hearing a petition filed by Congress leader Ramesh Chennithala challenging their constitutional validity.

The order was passed by a bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar VM.

"We have upheld the constitutionality of the amendments, but we have said that having regard to Section 12, the provision which has been amended, should be read as deemed acceptance if it is not considered within 90 days," Chief Justice Sen Said.

Section 12 under the act deals with reports of Lok Ayuktas, which are forwarded to the competent authority for carrying out directions when complete.

The Lok Ayukta under the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act was constituted to investigate allegations of corruption and maladministration against public servants and to provide speedy redressal of public grievances. In his petition, Chennithala challenged several amendments made to the act in 2024.

According to Chennithala, the amendments to Sections 2, 3, and 14 of the act curtail the independence of the Lok Ayukta. It stated that originally, the Governor was the authority to decide on the final action to be taken against the Chief Minister, an MLA, or a State-level office bearer of a political party. The Governor was to decide on the recommendations of the Lok Ayukta or the Upa Lok Ayukta. But the recommendations against a Minister or Secretary were left to the Chief Minister's discretion. 

However, under the amendments to Section 2, the competent authority for recommendations against the Chief Minister is the State Legislative Assembly, and for recommendations against MLAs, the Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly. Chennithala argued that this confers appellate powers to the party in power and will impact the administration of justice.

The petition further stated that, before the amendment, Section 3 provided that the Lok Ayukta must be a former Supreme Court judge or a former Chief Justice of the High Court. However, the new amendment replaces the former Chief Justice with a former High Court judge.

Chennithala argued that while a Chief Justice of a High Court would have served as a judge for many years before being elevated to the post, even judges who have served shorter periods can now be appointed. This downgrades the office of the Lok Ayukta system, the petition stated.

Chennithala also pointed out that, before the amendments, under Section 14, the competent authority was supposed to consider the recommendations of the Lok Ayukta or Upa Lok Ayukta and communicate the action to be taken to them. However, under the new amendments, the competent authority can choose not to take any action on the recommendations.

According to Chennithala, this is a direct interference with the powers of a forum akin to a court or tribunal and is, therefore, liable to be declared unconstitutional.

Chennithala argued that the amendments have diluted the provisions of the act, hampered the independence of the judiciary, and violated the separation of powers, which is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India.

Chennithala was represented by Senior Advocate George Poonthottam and advocates Nisha George, AL Navaneeth Krishnan, Ann Maria Francis, Reginald Valsalan, Anshin KK, Namita Philson, Kavya Varma MM and Sidharth R Wariyar.

(With Bar and Bench inputs)