Justifying the Lok Ayukta Amendment Ordinance empowering the State government to decide on the Lok Ayukta’s declaration for vacating a public servant found guilty of corruption and maladministration, the State government on Monday informed the Kerala High Court that it was well within its legislative domain to alter, amend or vary powers of the Lok Ayukta by way of an Ordinance.
In an affidavit, the government submitted that the functions of the Lok Ayukta were only investigative in nature and the Lok Ayukta or Upa Lok Ayukta was neither a court nor a tribunal.
Contradictions
It pointed out that the pre-amended section 14 of the Lok Ayukta Act enjoined on a public servant to vacate the office if a declaration was made by the Lok Ayukta to the effect that a complaint against the public servant was sustained and that the public servant should not continue to hold the post. As per section 12 of the Act, the report and the findings of the Lok Ayukta and Upa Lokayukta were recommendatory in nature. But the pre-amended section 14 (1) stipulated that the competent authority shall accept the declaration made by the Lok Ayukta in terms of the report under 12 (3) of the Act. Therefore, the contradiction between sections 12 and 14 had to be rectified. That is what the government had done by amending section 14.
No appellate power
The government also submitted that the amendment did not confer any appellate power on the executive and it only enabled the competent authority to take a call on the report of the Lok Ayukta, after affording the public servant an opportunity of being heard. The contention that there would be bias when the government considered the recommendation of the Lok Ayukta when the wrongdoer was a member of the government was baseless.
The government also dismissed the allegation that the assent to the Ordinance by the Governor was in violation of the constitutional mandate.
The affidavit was filed in response to a writ petition filed by R.S. Sasikumar of Thiruvananthapuram challenging the amendment. According to him, the amendment to section 14 had interfered with administration of justice and conferred a mode of appeal on the State government against the quasi-judicial orders of the Lok Ayukta.
