Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi lost his grudge battle with governor Dr Kamla over the appointment of Justice (rtd) R A Mehta as Lokayukta, with the Supreme Court on Wednesday upholding her choice and rejecting Modi’s objections as misplaced.
A bench of Justices B S Chauhan and F M I Kalifulla held that the consultation process for appointing the Lokayukta, in which the high court chief justice’s views enjoy primacy, has been completed, and the SC has no cause to reopen the selection procedure.
But if the court criticized Modi for adopting a “my way or highway” approach in opposing Justice Mehta’s name and suggesting other names for Lokayukta, it frowned upon Dr Kamla’s decision not to consult the CM and directly seeking opinions from the Gujarat high court chief justice and attorney general on the appointment. It also ticked off the HC for using immoderate language.
The court, however, rejected allegations of bias against Justice Mehta saying actions of a vigilant citizen in drawing attention to the apprehensions of a minority community cannot be seen as motivated. And while the council of ministers can have a say in the appointment, it ought not to have the final word.
The SC ruling comes as a setback for Modi who has sought to counter criticism that Gujarat did not have a Lokayukta for long by arguing that the appointment was politicized by the governor on the instance of Congress.
The Gujarat government claimed the then leader of opposition in the state Shaktisinh Gohil didn’t attend meetings called to discuss the appointment while the Raj Bhavan named a choice seen to be anti-Modi.
Aug 25, 2011 : Governor Kamla appoints retired high court judge Justice R A Mehta to the post of Lokayukta, vacant for the past eight years. Govt moves court, saying it was not consulted, as per laid down norms
Oct 11 : Division bench of Gujarat high court gives split verdict
Jan 18, 2012 : High court Justice V M Sahai upholds governor’s decision. Modi govt moves Supreme Court
Jan 2, 2013 |: SC upholds Mehta’s appointment. Says governor’s decision holds as she had consulted chief justice of high court while appointing Lokayukta
The SC order deflates the Modi government’s contention and the CM will have to accept the continuance of Justice Mehta as Lokayukta.
The court directed the Gujarat government to immediately provide necessary infrastructure and staff to make the Lokayukta office functional as Justice Mehta did not join office because of the pendency of the state government’s appeal in apex court. The post of Lokayukta had been lying vacant since November 24, 2003.
Congress promptly welcomed the ruling that comes soon after Modi’s third electoral win as the CM.
Although the bench upheld the HC’s decision, it disapproved the criticism of Modi by the HC and said, “we are of the view that the judge, even if he did not approve of the ‘my-way or the highway’ attitude adopted by the CM, ought to have maintained a calm disposition and should not have used such harsh language against a constitutional authority, that is the CM.”
The court was also critical of Dr Kamla’s role and said, “The present governor has misjudged her role and has insisted, that under the Act, 1986, the council of ministers has no role to play in the appointment of the Lokayukta, and that she could therefore, fill it up in consultation with the chief justice of the Gujarat high court and the leader of opposition. Such attitude is not in conformity, or in consonance with the democratic set up of government envisaged in our Constitution.” Modi had objected to Justice Mehta’s appointment as Lokayukta on the ground that he had shared a platform with persons who were known for their antagonism against the state government and that he had been a panelist for such NGOs, social groups and had expressed his dissatisfaction with the manner in which the present government was functioning.
Justice Chauhan, writing the judgment for the bench, said there was no merit in the CM’s objections. “If a vigilant citizen draws the attention of the state to the apprehensions of the minority community in the state, it then the same would not amount to a biased attitude of such citizen towards the state. We are of the opinion that such apprehension (of bias against the state government) is misplaced,” the bench said.
No comments:
Post a Comment