DIMAPUR — The
Kohima Bench of Gauhati High Court has issued an interim order staying the
operation of two amendments made to the Nagaland Lokayukta Act, 2017, which had
provided for a search committee—consisting of the chief secretary or additional
chief secretary and the advocate general of Nagaland—for the selection of a
Lokayukta and broadened the eligibility criteria for the appointment of a
Lokayukta.
A bench comprising Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia and Justice
Budi Habung issued the order while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
on January 22. According to court records, the PIL was filed by Vikato Shikhu
and Lhikhro Kreo.
According to the petitioners, the Nagaland Lokayukta Act,
2017, as amended by the First Amendment Act, 2019, under Section 3 (2) (ii),
provides that the selection committee, for the purpose of selecting the
Lokayukta and preparing a panel of persons for such appointments, shall be
guided by a search committee consisting of the chief secretary or additional
chief secretary and the advocate general of Nagaland.
They argued that this provision is “repugnant” to the
Central Act (Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013) as it deviates from the statutory
framework and safeguards laid down under Section 4 (3) of the Central Act.
According to Section 4 (3) of the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act,
2013, the Search Committee should comprise at least seven persons of eminence,
possessing special knowledge and expertise in matters relating to
anti-corruption policy, public administration, vigilance, policy-making,
finance including insurance and banking, law, management, or any other matter
which, in the opinion of the Selection Committee, may be deemed useful.
It further mandates that not less than 50% of the members of
the Search Committee should be from persons belonging to Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, minorities, and women.
The petitioners further argued that Section 3 (4) of the
Nagaland Lokayukta Act, 2017, as amended by the Nagaland Lokayukta (2nd
Amendment) Act, 2022, significantly broadens the eligibility criteria for the
appointment of a Lokayukta.
They contended that the amended provision unambiguously
includes a wider range of individuals eligible for appointment, departing from
the stricter framework laid down in the central legislation.
As per the amended Section 3 (4), a Lokayukta can now be a
person who has been a judge of the Supreme Court, the chief justice of a high
court, a judge of a high court, a person qualified to be appointed as a judge
of a high court, or a person with vast knowledge of law and experience in
judicial matters.
It further includes individuals of impeccable integrity and
outstanding ability having special knowledge and expertise of not less than
twenty years in matters relating to anti-corruption policy, public
administration, vigilance, finance including insurance and banking, law, and
management. This expanded scope undermines the uniformity of standards set by
Section 3 of the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013, and creates a conflict in the
statutory framework, they submitted in the argument.
According to the petitioners, the doctrine of repugnancy, as
enshrined under Article 254 of the Constitution of India, mandates that if any
provision of a law made by the legislature of a state is repugnant to a
provision of a law made by Parliament with respect to a matter enumerated in
the Concurrent List, then the law made by Parliament shall prevail. To the
extent of such repugnancy, the law enacted by the state legislature shall be
deemed void.
Therefore, the petitioners submitted a prayer to the court
to hold that the Nagaland Lokayukta (1st Amendment) Act, 2019, vide which
Section 3 (2) (ii) has been inserted, and the Nagaland Lokayukta (2nd
Amendment) Act, 2022, vide which new subsection (4) has been inserted in
Section 3 of the Nagaland Lokayukta Act, 2017, are void as they are hit by
repugnancy under Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India read with the
Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013.
The division bench issued notice to the state respondents
and ordered an interim stay on two amendments to the Nagaland Lokayukta Act,
2017.The matter has been listed to be
heard again after four weeks.
