MR. JUSTICE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH (RETD.) versus JANEKERE C. KRISHNA & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2013] 3 S.C.R. 987 · Decided: 11-01-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 3 S.C.R. 987 
MR. JUSTICE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH (RETD.) 
v. 
JANEKERE C. KRISHNA & ORS. ETC. 
(Civil Appeal Nos.197-199 of 2013) 
JANUARY 11, 2013 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] 
Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 - s.3(2)(a) and (b) -
Appointment of Lokayukta I Upa Lokayukta under the Act by 
A 
B 
the Governor of Karnataka - Nature and procedure to be 
C 
followed - Requirement of 'consultation' in the context of 
appointment process - Meaning of - Held: The Governor of 
the State can appoint Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta only on 
the advice tendered by the Chief Minister- The Chief Minister 
is mandatorily required to consult the Chief Justice of the High 
D 
Court and four other consultees - The consultation must be 
meaningful and effective - However, the advice tendered by 
the Chief Minister will have primacy and not that of the 
consultees including the Chief Justice of the High Court - On 
facts, the Chief Minister erred in not consulting the Chief E 
Justice of the High Court in the matter of appointment of 
appellant as Upa Lokayukta - Appointment of appellant was 
in violation of s.3(2)(b) of the Act since the Chief Justice of 
the High Court was not consulted nor was the name 
deliberated upon before advising or appointing him as Upa 
F 
Lokayukta - Consequently appellant has no authority to 
continue or hold the post of Upa Lokayukta. 
Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984- s.3(2)(a) and (b)- State 
of Karnataka - Duties and functions of the Lokayukta I Upa 
Lokayukta - Nature of - Discussed. 
G 
The office of the Karnataka Upa Lokayukta fell 
vacant. The Chief Minister of the Karnataka State initiated 
steps for filling up that vacancy and following that 
987 
H 
988 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 3 S.C.R. 
A advised 
the 
Governor 
to 
appoint 
Justice 
B 
Chandrashekaraiah as Upa Lokayukta. The Governor, 
accepting the advice of the Chief Minister, passed order 
dated 20.01.2012 appointing Justice Chandrashekaraiah 
as the Upa Lokayukta. 
The Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court 
addressed a letter dated 04.02.2012 to the Chief Minister 
stating that he was not consulted in the matter of 
appointment of Justice Chandrashekaraiah as Upa 
Lokayukta and that the appointment was not in 
C conformity with the constitutional provisions and 
requested for recalling the appointment. Subsequently, 
two writ petitions were filed in public interest for quashing 
the appointment of Justice Chandrashekaraiah as Upa 
Lokayukta. A writ of quo warranto was also preferred 
D against the functioning of Justice Chandrashekaraiah as 
Upa Lokayukta. 
The High Court held that since there was no 
consultation with the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High 
E Court specifically on the appointment of Justice 
Chandrashekaraiah 
as 
an 
Upa-lokayukta, 
his 
appointment, therefore, was void ab initio. The High 
Court held that under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, 
the opinion expressed by the Chief Justice of the High 
F Court of Karnataka has primacy while tendering advice 
by the Chief Minister of the State to the Governor and that 
since, the. order passed by the Governor of Karnataka, 
appointing Justice Chandrashekaraiah as Upa 
Lokayukta, was without consulting the Chief Justice of 
G the l:ligh Court, the same was illegal. 
In the instant appeals preferred by Justice 
Chandrashekaraiah and the State of "Karnataka, the 
question which arose for consideration was whether the 
view of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka 
H has got primacy while making appointment to the post 
JUSTICE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH (RETD.). v. . 
989 
JANEKERE C. KRISHNA 
of Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta by the Governor of A . 
Karnataka in exercise of powers conferred on him under 
Section 3(2)(a) and (b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 
1984. 
Disposing ofthe appeals, the Court 
Per Radhakrishnan, J. . 
B 
HELD: 1.1. The functions to be discharged by 
Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta are investigative in nature 
and the report of Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta under c 
sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 12 of the Act and the 
Special Report ~ubmitted under sub-section (5) of 
Section 12 of the Act are only recommendatory. No civil 
. consequence as such follows from the action of 
Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta, though they can initiate o 
prosecution before a competent court. Sections 9, 10 and 
11 of the Act clearly indicate that Lokayukta and Upa 
Lokayukta are discharging quasi-judicial functions while 
conducting the investigation under th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.