Today, On 27th May, Ramesh Chennithala filed a petition in the Kerala High Court challenging recent amendments to the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act. He argues that these changes undermine the independence and effectiveness of the anti-corruption body. Chennithala contends that the amendments are unconstitutional and violate principles of natural justice.
Kerala: Former State Home Minister and current Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) from the Congress party, Ramesh Chennithala, filed a petition before the Kerala High Court. The petition challenges the constitutional validity of recent amendments made to the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999.
A bench of Chief Justice AJ Desai and Justice VG Arun, ordered that the petition be placed before the appropriate bench as per the roster.
The Kerala Lok Ayukta Act (the Act) established the Lok Ayukta, an institution responsible for investigating allegations of corruption and maladministration against public servants. The Act also aimed to provide speedy redressal of grievances from the public.
Read Also: 2016 Dalit Law Student Rape-Murder Case | Kerala HC Upholds Death Sentence
According to the petition filed by Chennithala, the recent amendments made to Sections 2, 3, and 14 of the Act curtailed the independence of the Lok Ayukta.
The petition states that,
“Originally, the Governor was the authority responsible for taking the final action based on the recommendations made by the Lok Ayukta or Upa Lok Ayukta against the Chief Minister, an MLA, or a State-level office bearer of political parties.”
However, the amendments have changed this, where the decision-making power has now been shifted. In the case of a recommendation against a Minister or Secretary, the final decision lies with the Chief Minister, rather than the Governor.
Chennithala challenged these amendments, arguing that they undermine the autonomy and effectiveness of the Lok Ayukta institution.
Under the recent revisions to Section 2, the State Legislative Assembly now designated as the competent authority for issuing recommendations against the Chief Minister, while the Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly holds this authority concerning recommendations against MLAs. Chennithala argued that this effectively grants appellate powers to the ruling party, potentially leading to significant implications for the judicial process.
The petition highlighted,
“Prior to the amendment, Section 3 stipulated that the Lok Ayukta could be either a former Supreme Court judge or a former Chief Justice of a High Court. However, the recent amendment replaces ‘former Chief Justice’ with ‘former High Court judge’.”
Chennithala contended that while a Chief Justice of a High Court typically accumulates many years of judicial experience before assuming the position, the new amendment allows for the appointment of a judge who may have only served for a few years.
According to the petition, this amendment represents a downgrade of the Lok Ayukta system’s office.
Chennithala argued that before the amendments, the competent authority required to consider the recommendations made by the Lok Ayukta or Upa Lok Ayukta and communicate the planned actions to them. However, the new amendments allow the competent authority to choose not to take any action on the recommendations.
Chennithala believes this is a direct interference with the powers of a forum that is similar to a court or a tribunal, and is therefore likely to be deemed unconstitutional.
Read Also: Kerala HC: Consumer Forum Members Granted Interim Extension Pending New Appointments
Chennithala asserted that the amendments have weakened the stipulations of the Act, undermined judicial autonomy, and contravened the principle of separation of powers, an integral aspect of the Indian Constitution’s basic structure.
Senior Advocate George Poonthottam and advocates Nisha George, AL Navaneeth Krishnan, Ann Maria Francis, Reginald Valsalan, Anshin KK, Namita Philson, Kavya Varma MM, and Sidharth R Wariyar representing Chennithala.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
