Kerala HC upholds amendments made to Lok Ayukta Act in 2024

Kochi: High court on Tuesday upheld the amendments made to the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act in 2024, holding that the state legislature is competent to enact such changes.The bench of chief justice Soumen Sen and Justice V M Syam Kumar issued the order in petitions filed by former opposition leader Ramesh Chennithala and N Prakash of Maradu in Ernakulam, challenging the amendments. The petitioners primarily questioned the amendment to Section 14 of the Act, which had earlier provided that the decisions of the Lok Ayukta and Upa Lok Ayukta were binding in nature. The provision has now been amended to make such decisions recommendatory and allowing the competent authority to review them.Previously, Section 14 mandated that if the Lok Ayukta or Upa Lok Ayukta returned a finding against a public servant, the person concerned was required to vacate office. The amendment now permits the competent authority to review the decision within 90 days. Similarly, the amendment to Section 2 modifies the definition of the "competent authority" for handling corruption reports. The change shifts the authority for reviewing reports against the chief minister to the state legislative assembly, and against MLAs to the speaker. These powers were earlier vested in the governor and chief minister, respectively.The petitioners also challenged the modification to Section 3, which allows a former HC judge to be appointed as Lok Ayukta. Previously only a former Supreme Court judge or a former Chief Justice of an HC was eligible. Both petitioners alleged that the impugned amendments have reduced the Lok Ayukta's powers as the state legislature is now required to treat its reports as merely recommendatory. They contended that the Lok Ayukta's orders carry the trappings of a judicial order and cannot be equated with administrative or statutory orders against which an appeal to a higher authority in the executive govt may be contemplated.Opposing these arguments, the advocate general submitted that the state legislature has the competence to enact the amendments and that the impugned provisions are not inconsistent with any law made by Parliament or with matters enumerated in the Concurrent List.Accepting the state's arguments, HC upheld the constitutional validity of the amendments. It observed that although the Lok Ayukta and Upa Lok Ayukta perform functions similar to those of a court, they are not courts or tribunals with full judicial powers. Their reports, even when prepared through a fair process, do not finally determine the rights of the parties in the manner of a court judgment. Therefore, changing their decisions from binding to recommendatory does not amount to conferring appellate powers on the executive, HC added.Additionally, HC clarified that if a Lok Ayukta report is not rejected by the competent authority within 90 days of its receipt, it shall be deemed accepted upon the expiry of that period.HC also observed that it would be desirable to restore the original provision regarding the appointment of a person who has held the office of Chief Justice of a High Court. It noted that the original Act had equated a retired Supreme Court judge with a retired Chief Justice of a high court, whereas the amendment replaces the latter with a retired high court judge. The court left it to the legislature to take a decision on this issue.