The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday said that the act of the former Chief Minister B.S. Yeddyurappa — who hurriedly appointed a new Lokayukta after the information that he [Yeddyurappa] had been indicted in the illegal mining report was leaked a few days before the submission of the report by the incumbent Lokayukta — would certainly bring a bad name to the Lokayukta institution.
The manner in which he [Yeddyurappa] appointed a new Lokayukta would also send a wrong signal to society and affect the confidence of the people in the institution of Lokayukta, the court said.
“The Chief Minister of the day was indicted in the illegal mining report of the then Lokayukta. He was going out of the office following demand for this resignation. Mr. Yeddyurappa hurriedly issued a notification on July 26, 2011 appointing the new Lokayukta [Shivaraj V. Patil], whose name was not recommended by the then Chief Justice,” observed a Division Bench comprising Justice N. Kumar and Justice H.S. Kempanna in its verdict on the procedure to be followed while appointing the Lokayukta and the Upalokayukta.
As the Lokayukta was retiring on August 2, 2011 in the normal course the successor should have taken action on the report on illegal mining, the Bench said while pointing out that this hurried action of the then Chief Minister raises the question whether the proposal of the name of the Lokayukta should emerge from the Chief Minister or any other constitutional functionaries who belong to the same political parties, or from the Chief Justice.
Why Chief Justice?
In this background and keeping in mind the recent controversy over the selection of persons to these posts, the Bench held that the Chief Justice should get the primacy as other constitutional functionaries involved in the process are politicians and the Chief Justice alone is not connected with any political parties and he is from outside the State. Also, the Chief Justice, the Bench said, will have access to all the records of judges — before they were appointed as judges, their performance, conduct and ability during their tenure as judges, and to some extent to their activities after their retirement, — and hence he should have primacy in recommending the name for the Lokayukta's post.
No stay
When Mr. Chandrashekaraiah's counsel made a plea for staying the operation of the judgement, the Bench said it is improper for the court to stay the order after holding that as if the respondent three [Chandrashekaraiah] is not in office and ceased to be in office as it has already declared the appointment order issued by the government as ab initio void and non-est in law .
