Lokayukta’s order for preliminary inquiry into MLA corruption upheld by Supreme Court
Supreme Court observed in latest Case regarding Lokayukta’s order for preliminary inquiry into MLA corruption (OFFICE OF THE ODISHALOKAYUKTA Vs. DR. PRADEEP KUMAR PANIGRAHI AND OTHERS D.D. 23 Feb 2023) observed that the rule against bias is an essential component of modern administrative law as it ensures a fair procedure by excluding decision-makers who are tainted by bias. The rule disqualifies decision-makers even if it is prohibitively difficult to establish actual bias.
The Lokayukta had directed the Directorate of Vigilance to conduct a preliminary inquiry under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2014, and submit a report within two months, with a direction to comply with Section 20(2) during the inquiry. However, the respondent challenged the order by filing a writ petition before the High Court, which set aside the order and granted liberty to the Lokayukta to conduct a preliminary inquiry through its inquiry wing. The Lokayukta’s review petition against the High Court’s order was dismissed in a non-speaking order, which is challenged in the present appeals.
The appellant’s learned counsel argued that the impugned order violated the principles of natural justice, as the finding was recorded without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Furthermore, it was not in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Act 2014. The learned counsel further submitted that Section 20(1) provides an option to the Lokayukta to conduct a preliminary inquiry against any public servant through its enquiry wing or any agency to ascertain whether there exists any prima facie case for proceeding in the matter further.
The Supreme Court observed that the Division Bench of the High Court had completely overlooked Section 20(1) of the Act, which empowers the Lokayukta to conduct either a preliminary inquiry against a public servant by its inquiry wing or any other agency to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter or hold an investigation by any agency or authority empowered under any law to investigate whether there exists a prima facie case.
The Court noted that Section 25 of Chapter VIII of the Act entrusts the power of superintendence to the Lokayukta to exercise in such a manner so as to require any agency, including the State Vigilance and Crime Branch.
The Court further stated that the action of the Division Bench of the High Court was in violation of the principles of natural justice, which require that no decision should be given against a party without affording him a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Court emphasized that the action of the authority must be held in good faith without bias and not arbitrary or unreasonable.
The Supreme Court held that the interference made by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was neither valid nor justified, as no adverse or prejudicial action was taken by the appellant in initiating to conduct a preliminary inquiry under its order. The Court further directed the Lokayukta to conduct the preliminary inquiry within a specified timeframe and in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
The Supreme Court has upheld the Lokayukta’s order for a preliminary inquiry into alleged corruption by a Member of the Legislative Assembly and has set aside the High Court’s order which had earlier quashed the Lokayukta’s order. The Court has directed Lokayukta to conduct the preliminary inquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Act and within a specified timeframe. The judgment emphasizes the importance of natural justice and the need for authorities to act in good faith without bias or arbitrariness.
OFFICE OF THE ODISHALOKAYUKTA Vs. DR. PRADEEP KUMAR PANIGRAHI AND OTHERS
