From what stage of their removal process the Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta is precluded from discharge of duties during the pendency of a motion against them?
This question has cropped up following the “confusion” created over the status of the process initiated by MLAs for removing Upalokayukta-II Subhash B. Adi.
Section 6(14) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act states: “The Lokayukta or Upalokayukta, as the case may be, against whom a motion is moved before the House or the Houses of the State legislature for his removal, is precluded from discharge of his duties during the pendency of the motion for his removal before the House or the Houses of the State legislature.”
This section is now being interpreted in two ways by legal experts.
Plain reading
A majority of the lawyers pointed out that plain reading of the section makes it clear that the Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta is precluded from functioning “soon after the motion for their removal is moved in the Legislature” and hence Mr. Adi is now precluded from functioning as the motion has been moved in the State Assembly.
An interpretation
Another section of lawyers, however, claimed that since the Act gives the powers to the Speaker of the Assembly (or the Chairman of the Council) to either admit or reject the motion, Mr. Adi cannot be precluded from functioning as of now as the Speaker has clarified that the motion has been “only moved” in the Assembly and he has not admitted it yet.
Adi’s point of view
Meanwhile, Mr. Adi, who has moved the High Court of Karnataka seeking clarity on the Section 6(14) of the Act, has mooted a third interpretation for this provision by contending that a motion for removal could be moved only after the Chief Justice of the High Court gives a report finding the Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta guilty of charges levelled in the notice of motion and hence they could be precluded from functioning only after the motion is moved in the House along with the Chief Justice’s inquiry report.
