The Secretariat of the Legislative Assembly Speaker on Friday told the High Court of Karnataka that the “tenor of the letter”, written by the Secretary of the Assembly to the Registrar of the Lokayukta, “does not preclude Upalokayukta [Subhash B. Adi] from functioning”.
State Advocate-General Madhusudhan R. Naik made this submission on behalf of the Speaker’s Secretariat during the hearing of the petition filed by Mr. Adi terming the contents of the Secretary’s letter, dated December 3, as “erroneous, legally wrong and misleading”.
Justice Anand Byrareddy, who recorded the submission of the A-G, adjourned further hearing on the petition till January, without passing an interim order.
To a query by the court on the Secretary’s letter, the A-G said Mr. Adi himself stopped coming to work, whereas the Assembly Secretary merely conveyed the legal provisions as the Registrar had sought some clarifications.
The Secretary had written a letter in response to the clarification sought by the Registrar on November 30 on whether Mr. Adi, who is Upalokayukta-II, was precluded from discharging his duties and whether the motion for his removal was admitted by the Speaker.
The Secretary had merely stated that the motion was “moved in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly…” on November 27, while extracting Section 6(4) of the Karnataka Lokayukta (Amendment) Act, 2015, that has a provision for precluding Lokayukta or Upalokayukta during the pendency of the motion.
Earlier, Senior Advocate B.V. Acharya, appearing for Mr. Adi, contended that a motion for removal of Lokayukta or Upalokayukta has to be moved before the Legislative Assembly or Council, along with an inquiry report of the Chief Justice of the High Court and till that stage no proceedings before the Houses comes into picture.
It was also contended on behalf of Mr. Adi that Section 6(4) of the Act does not preclude the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta from discharging his duties even when the inquiry proceedings were pending before the Chief Justice of the High Court.
“…the of Act clearly provides that it comes into operation only after a motion is moved before the House or Houses for removal, which can be done only after the inquiry report is received from the Chief Justice holding Lokayukta or Upalokayukta as guilty,” it was claimed in Mr. Adi’s petition.
‘Speaker lacks authority’
It has been contended in the petition that it was “impermissible” for the Speaker to embark on any inquiry, and the Speaker’s only function is to refer the matter to the Chief Justice for holding the investigation on the grounds on which Lokayukta or Upalokayukta’s removal was sought. Also, it was alleged in the petition that even after the notice of motion for his removal was admitted on November 27, the Secretary of the Legislative Assembly was corresponding with many persons and has been collecting/gathering information and material against Mr. Adi.
