In a recent development concerning the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act of 1999, the Supreme Court has asserted that the Lok Ayukta possesses only recommendatory jurisdiction. The court clarified that the Lok Ayukta, under Section 12(1) of the 1999 Act, lacks the authority to issue positive directions and can only submit a report to the relevant authority along with its recommendations.
A panel comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal referred to key judgments from the Kerala High Court, specifically Sudha Devi K. v. District Collector 2017 SCC OnLine Ker 1264 and District Collector v. Registrar, Kerala Lokayukta, AIR 2023 Ker 97. These judgments correctly interpreted the provisions of the Kerala Lokayukta Act, according to the Supreme Court.
The Apex Court emphasized, “…in terms of Section 12(1) of the 1999 Act, Lok Ayukta was not competent to issue positive direction. He can only submit a report with the concerned authority with its recommendations. They only have recommendatory jurisdiction.”
Section 12 of the 1999 Act outlines that if the Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta identifies any action or inaction causing injustice or hardship, they shall submit a written report recommending remedial measures to the competent authority.
The Supreme Court addressed a challenge against a Kerala High Court order, involving a Writ Petition filed by an Additional Tahsildar against an Upa Lokayukta’s order to correct revenue records. The Apex Court noted the Lokayukta’s jurisdiction is not supervisory over other statutory bodies, and its role is limited to addressing maladministration.
The complainant had raised concerns about the correction of errors in property revenue records, and the Lokayukta had directed the Tehsildar to rectify the mistake and collect taxes. The Appellant argued that the Lokayukta had exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing positive directions.
The Supreme Court observed that the Respondent-Complainant did not pursue appropriate statutory remedies after the rejection of the request for rectification of revenue records. Consequently, the Apex Court deemed the High Court’s decision upholding the Upa Lokayukta’s directive as legally unsustainable, setting aside the orders.
[Case Reference: ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR V. URMILA G., CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). ___ OF 2023 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.2652 OF 2023)]
