| Font Size |
A Bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and Madan B Lokur held that the consultation with the chief justice is mandatory before appointment of Upa Lokayukta and the chief minister did not hold any "meaningful" consultation with the chief justice.
The Bench, however, made it clear that there is nothing against justice Chandrashekaraiah and he can be again considered by the state government for the post.
The Bench said the chief minister has committed error by not consulting the chief justice and held that the appointment of Upa Lokayukta is void ab initio (to be treated as invalid from the outset).
The Karnataka High Court had on April 3 last year quashed the appointment of justice Chandrashekaraiah as the Upa Lokayukta holding that the selection procedure was "not in conformity with law".
The high court had set aside the January 21 last year notification issued by the Karnataka government appointing Chandrashekariah as the Upa Lokayukta.
The Bench had said that the selection procedure adopted by Karnataka Chief Minister D V Sadananda Gowda "is not in conformity with law and hence the appointment is illegal, unconstitutional and void".
It had also urged the state government and chief minister to expeditiously start a fresh selection process as mandated by the Lokayukta Act to find a new Upa Lokayukta as the post cannot be held vacant for long.
The court had also suggested guidelines for the selection in which Chief Justice's opinion will have primacy.
Supreme court now should explain the rational when it upholds Gujrat Lokayukta appointment. The governor had appointed the Lokayukta without consulting the state government. It seems the SC of India does not have any consistency in thinking. I wonder whether it is more judicial or political in its approach ??
It is more judicial. What it did in Gujarat is correct and what it has done in Karnataka is correct, too.
There was no need to consult murderer Namo according to the Guj Lokayukta Act. Dont you modi fans get enough of defending him?
In case of Gujarat, CM was not consulted. Since chief justice of high court, governor and leader of opposition talked and chief justice forced lokayuta there. Same SC gave ruling couple of weeks back that appointment is ok even though CM was not consulted. Law clearly states CM, council of minister, Chief Justice and leader of opposition goes through consultation process to elect a representative. Now SC does not like when chief justice was not consulted. Can they be uniform in their judgement? Selective justice is against the very foundation of our judicial system.
