Citations: State of Gujarat and Ors. Vs. Hon’ble Justice R.A. Mehta and Ors., MANU/SC/0001/2013
Date of Judgment: 02.01.2013
Equivalent Citations: AIR 2013 SC 693, 2014 (1) CPR 779, 2013 (1) SCALE 7.
Case No. : 8814-8815 of 2012 and S.L.P. (C) Nos. 2625-2626 of 2012
Case Type: Civil
Petitioner/Appellant: State of Gujarat and Ors.
Defendant/Respondent: Hon’ble Justice R.A. Mehta and Ors.
Bench: Justice B.S. Chauhan and F.M. Ibrahim kalifulla
Court: The Supreme Court of India
Statues referred:
- Constitution of India, 1950; Articles- 123, 124(2), 141, 154, 161, 162, 163 etc.
- Gujarat Lokayukta Act, 1986; Sections- 2 (7) & (8), 12, 19 and 20.
- Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 8 (3)
Cases referred:
- Suraz Trust India Vs. Union of India and Anr. 2011
- Keshav Mills Co. Ltd., Petlad Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay North, Ahmadabad, 1965
- Union of India and Ors. Vs. Kali Dass Batish and Anr., 2006 etc.
Facts:
- Gujarat Lokayukta Act, 1986 was enacted by the Gujarat Legislature which provided the appointment of a retired judge of High Court as a Lokayukta. Under the Act, the Chief Minister of Gujarat, upon consultation with the Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court, and the Leader of Opposition in the House, made a recommendation to the Governor, for the post of Lokayukta, on the basis of which, the Governor would then issue requisite letters of appointment.
- On 24.11.2003, Justice S.M. Soni resigned and the post of Lokayukta became vacant. The Chief Justice recommended the name of Justice R.A. Mehta whereas the Chief Minister suggested the name of Justice J.R. Vohra to the Chief Justice for the vacant post of Lokayukta.
- The Governor appointed Justice R.A. Mehta as Lokayukta.
- The State Government of Gujarat filed a writ petition challenging the appointment of Justice R.A. Mehta to the post of Lokayukta.
Issues involved:
- Whether appointment of Justice R.A. Mehta to the post of Lokayukta could be held to be illegal?
Contention of Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on the behalf of the State Government of Gujarat contended that-
- The Governor is a head of State and is bound to act only in accordance with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, headed by Chief Minister.
- In this case, the actions of Governor were contrary to the principles of Parliamentary democracy. The Governor ought not to have consulted and corresponded with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Gujarat. The action of Governor consulting with the Attorney General of India about the appointment of Lokayukta was also contrary to the provisions of Gujarat Lokayukta Act, 1986.
- The Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court ought to have consider the suggestions proposed by the Chief Minister of the State of Gujarat in respect to the appointment of the Lokayukta. Chief Minister ought to have recommended a panel of names for the consideration of the appointment, and he could not have recommended only one name during the process.
- The entire procedure adopted by the Governor is in clear contravention of the actual procedure as contemplated by the statute for the purpose of the appointment of the Lokayukta. Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the appointment of Justice R.A. Mehta to the post of Lokayukta to be set aside.
Contention of Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent contended that-
- The Governor had acted as a statutory authority under the Gujarat Lokayukta Act, 1986, and not as the head of State, and thus, she was not required to act in accordance with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
- The objections raised by the Chief Minister were thoroughly considered by the Chief Justice, no substance was found and thus the no fault can be found with the action of the Governor in respect to the appointment of Lokayukta.
- Chief Justice has primacy of opinion in the matter of consultation, and therefore, he could send only one name for the appointment of Lokayukta and the act would not be in violation of the scheme of the Gujarat Lokayukta Act, 1986.
Judgment:
The court ultimately found that the appeal lacked merit and dismissed it, allowing Justice R.A. Mehta to assume the position of Lokayukta.
Ratio decidendi:
- The Governor, in this context, acted as a statutory authority under the Gujarat Lokayukta Act, 1986, and not as the head of the state, and therefore, was not required to act in accordance with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
- The objections raised by the Chief Minister were considered by the Chief Justice, and no substance was found in those objections. Consequently, there was no fault in the Governor’s action in appointing Justice R.A. Mehta as Lokayukta.
- The Chief Justice had the primacy of opinion in the matter of consultation, which allowed him to send only one name for the appointment of Lokayukta. This action was not in violation of the scheme of the Gujarat Lokayukta Act, 1986.
Conclusion:
In the case involving the appointment of Justice R.A. Mehta as the Lokayukta under the Gujarat Lokayukta Act, 1986, the court concluded that the Governor acted as a statutory authority under the Act, rather than as the head of the state, and thus, was not bound to act in accordance with the advice of the Council of Ministers.
Drafted By- Devanshi Saxena, Manipal University, Jaipur
Published on: October 21, 2023 at 10:43 IST