Lokayukta: Gujarat for review of SC verdict

The Gujarat government has moved the Supreme Court, seeking review of its judgment that had upheld the appointment of retired judge R A Mehta as Lokayukta. The verdict on January 2 had dismissed all objections against the selection process and allegations that he was biased against the government.

It held that the appointment of the former high court judge as valid in law in view of the "primacy of opinion" of the HC chief justice, who, besides Governor Kamla Beniwal and the leader of opposition, had approved his selection.

In its review petition, Gujarat has relied upon a verdict delivered by another SC Bench on January 11 over appointment of the Upa Lokayukta in Karnataka.

The review petition states there is divergence of views in the court's order on the Gujarat Lokayukta's appointment and its order on the Karnataka Upa Lokayukta's appointment.

"It is pertinent to note that the propositions of law laid down in both the said judgments are very much different while dealing with similar provisions relating to the appointment of Lokayukta in Gujarat and Upa Lokayukta in Karnataka respectively," said the petition.

The government has argued that Section 3 of the Lokayukta Act is identical in both Gujarat and Karnataka.

It further said that the apex court's order in the Gujarat Lokayukta issue gives the predominant role to the chief justice while its order of January 11 seeks to grant equal status to all constitutional functionaries involved in the constitutional process.

Please read our terms of use before posting comments
TERMS OF USE: The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).
comments powered by Disqus