Thiruvananthapuram: There were three points law minister P Rajeeve offered as reasons for taking away the "absolute" powers of the Kerala Lok Ayukta.
One, the original Act (Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999) has a provision, Section 14, that is unconstitutional. Two, by its own preamble, the original Act envisaged the Lok Ayukta only as a statutory body for enquiry and investigation and not as a judicial body. Three, the original Act militates against the lofty ideal of natural justice.
The minister was introducing the Kerala Lok Ayukta (Amendment) Bill, 2022, in the Assembly on Tuesday. The Opposition UDF saw in the amendment an attempt by the LDF government to emasculate an independent body formed two decades ago to check corruption by persons in positions of power.
Rajeeve said that Section 14 of the existing Act, which states that ministers and even a Chief Minister should be removed without question if the Lok Ayukta declares so after an investigation, goes against Articles 163 and 164 of the Constitution. Under these, a Chief Minister or a council of ministers will hold office during the pleasure of the Governor. But Rajeeve argued that Lok Ayukta, too, had appropriated this Constitutional authority. "This is therefore unconstitutional," the minister said.
Opposition Leader V D Satheesan shot back. "Who are you to call an Act passed by this House unconstitutional?" he asked. Quoting a Supreme Court order, Satheesan said that no one except the courts had the authority to declare as unconstitutional a law passed by the Legislature.
Rajeeve brushed this aside asking how a government could be expected to approach a court seeking an amendment of an Act passed by the House. "When there is the realisation that a provision of law is against the Constitution, it is up to the Legislature to take the initiative. Or else the judiciary would step in to fill the vacuum," the minister said.
The law minister further said that even the original Act had not envisaged the Lok Ayukta as a judicial body. He said the preamble of the Act had in fact limited the Lok Ayukta's powers to "making enquiries" and nothing more. But he said the Kerala Lok Ayukta took for itself judicial powers, too.
Rajeeve challenged the Opposition to point out one instance in the original Act where the word judicial is used to describe the functions of the Lok Ayukta.
Opposition Leader V D Satheesan was game. He pointed out two areas, sections 11(2) and 11(3). Section 11(2) says that the Lok Ayukta shall have all the powers of a civil court while trying a suit under the code of civil procedure. Section 11(3) says any proceeding before the Lok Ayukta should be deemed to be a judicial proceeding.
Congress MLA Mathew Kuzhalnadan pointed out one more. He said that Section 19 of the existing Act granted contempt powers to the Lok Ayukta. "Tell me one Act other than this that was granted the contempt powers of the High Court," Kuzhalnadan said.
In response, Rajeeve said there were over a hundred quasi-judicial bodies that were given Indian Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code powers. "But this does not make them judicial bodies," the minister said. Further, he said that no ombudsman in the whole world had both the powers to conduct an enquiry and then to deliver punishment on the basis of this enquiry. "This goes against the basic tenets of jurisprudence," Rajeeve said.
The ruling party's most persuasive argument was the denial of natural justice under the existing Act. Rajeeve said there was no provision for appeal in the Act. Former minister K T Jaleel said that when he was found guilty by the Lok Ayukta, the entire proceedings right from admitting the file to delivering the final judgment were wrapped up in 10 days. Incidentally, Jaleel's was the only instance in its near quarter-century existence that the Kerala Lok Ayukta had invoked its powers under section 14 of the Act. "I was not even given a chance to make my case (before the Lok Ayukta)," Jaleel said.
The Opposition Leader then had a counter poser. "How do you think a Chief Minister or Speaker can sit in judgment over a decision taken by a retired judge of the High Court?" Satheesan asked. Once the new Bill is passed, reports generated by the Lok Ayukta after investigation could be rejected by the competent authority (CA); under the existing Act, these had to be accepted. In the case of MLAs, the CA will be the Speaker, in the case of ministers, it will be the Chief Minister and in the case of the Chief Minister, it will be the Governor.
Rajeeve said this provision was in line with what had been laid down in the Lok Pal Act of the Centre. However, Kuzhalnadan argued that in the Lok Pal Act, the CAs were not given appellate powers like in the Kerala Lok Ayukta Amendment. He said under the Lok Pal Act, the adverse findings of the Lok Pal should be transferred to a special court and not to CAs.
The Bill was referred to the Subject Committee of the Assembly, where it is expected that the changes proposed by CPI would be incorporated.
