Kerala High Court upholds 2024 Kerala Lok Ayukta Act amendments, turns down challenge by Ramesh Chennithala

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday upheld the amendments made to the Kerala Lok Ayuka Act in 2024. [Ramesh Chennithala MLA v. State of Kerala]

A bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar VM passed the order on a petition filed by former State Home Minister and current Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) from the Congress party, Ramesh Chennithala, challenging the constitutional validity of the amendments.

"We have upheld the constitutionality of the amendments but we have said that having regard to Section 12, the provision which has been amended, should be read as deemed acceptance if it is not considered within 90 days," Chief Justice Sen Said.

Section 12 deals with reports of Lok Ayuktas. When a report is complete, it is forwarded to the competent authority for carrying out directions.

The Lok Ayukta under the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act (the Act) was constituted for investigating allegations of corruption and maladministration against public servants and for the speedy redressal of grievances of public.

In his petition, Chennithala challenged several amendments made to the Act in 2024. The amendments to Sections 2, 3, and 14 of Act, according to Chennithala, curtail the independence of the Lok Ayukta.

The petition stated that originally, the Governor was the authority to decide on the final action to be taken against the Chief Minister or an MLA or a State-level office bearer of political parties. The Governor was to take the decision on the recommendations made by the Lok Ayukta or Upa Lok Ayukta.

In case of a recommendation against a Minister or Secretary, it was upto the Chief Minister to take the final decision.

However, as per the amendments to Section 2, the competent authority for recommendations against the Chief Minister is the State Legislative Assembly, and for recommendations against MLAs is the Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly.

Chennithala contended that this essentially confers appellate powers to the party in power and will have far-reaching consequences for the administration of justice.

The petition further stated that before the amendment, Section 3 provided for the Lok Ayukta to be a former Supreme Court judge or a former Chief Justice of the High Court. However, the new amendment replaces former Chief Justice with former High Court judge.

Chennithala argued that while a Chief Justice of a High Court would have served as a judge for many years before being elevated to the post, even a judge who has spent a couple of years as a judge can now be appointed.

This downgrades the office of the Lok Ayukta system, the petition stated.

As for Section 14, Chennithala argued that before the amendments, the competent authority was supposed to consider the recommendations made by the Lok Ayukta or Upa Lok Ayukta and communicate to them what action would be taken on the same. However, as per the new amendments, the competent authority can choose not to take any action on the recommendations well.

According to Chennithala, this is a direct interference over the powers of a forum that is akin to a court or a tribunal and is, therefore, liable to be declared unconstitutional.

Chennithala argued that the amendments have diluted the provisions of the Act, hampered the independence of the judiciary, and violated the separation of powers which is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India.

Chennithala was represented by 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.