Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Justice Subhash B. Adi, is the incumbent Upa-Lokayukta of Karnataka, appointed in 2013 under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. On 27 November 2015, 78 members of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly submitted a notice of motion to the Speaker seeking his removal. The Registrar of the Karnataka Lokayukta requested information about the motion, and received a communication from the Secretary of the Legislative Assembly dated 30 November 2015 (received 4 December 2015) stating that the motion had been moved and, under Section 6(14) of the Act, the Upa-Lokayukta was precluded from discharging duties during its pendency. The appellant filed a writ petition on 17 December 2015 seeking quashing of that communication and a declaration that the respondents were not empowered to gather further information after the motion's admission. He also sought interim relief. At the preliminary hearing on 18 December 2015, the Advocate General submitted that the impugned communication did not actually preclude the Upa-Lokayukta from working, and time was granted to file objections. The respondents filed preliminary objections on 31 December 2015, contending that the motion had not yet been admitted by the Speaker; it had only been formally moved on the floor of the House, and the Speaker was in the process of examining whether a prima facie case existed under Section 6(3) and (4) of the Act. The appellant filed a rejoinder asserting that the Speaker had in fact admitted the motion on 27 November 2015, as reported in the press, and that the entire procedure was flawed and not in conformity with the amended Section 6. He later applied for amendment of the writ petition to include additional prayers seeking a declaration that the proceedings based on the notice were null and void and a stay of further proceedings. The Single Judge, on 2 March 2016, dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable and consequently dismissed five interlocutory applications. Against this order, the appellant filed the present writ appeals, which came up for preliminary hearing before a Division Bench on 26 April 2016. The judgment text records the factual backdrop and the submissions of both sides but does not include the Division Bench's analysis or final decision.
Issue of Consideration
Case Details
2016 LawText (KAR) (04) 36
Writ Appeal Nos.599 – 600/2016 (GM–RES)
B.V. Acharya, Ashok B Patil, Madhusudhan R Naik, D. Nagaraj
The Secretary, Karnataka Legislative Assembly and The State of Karnataka
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
The appellant, who is the incumbent Upa-Lokayukta, challenged a communication from the Secretary of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly stating that he is precluded from discharging duties during pendency of a removal motion, and sought declarations regarding the Speaker's power to gather information after admission of the motion.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the communication dated 03.12.2015 issued by the first respondent (Annexure-A) and a declaration that respondents are not empowered to seek any information from any source after the notice of motion is admitted. Also, interim order to same effect. Later, amendment sought declaration that entire procedure adopted in pursuance of notice dated 20.11.2015 is null and void, and stay of further proceedings.
Filing Reason
The appellant contended that a notice of motion for his removal was given by 78 members and admitted by the Speaker on 27.11.2015, after which the Speaker continued to gather information/materials against him, which he claimed was beyond power. He also alleged procedural irregularities in the notice of motion.
Previous Decisions
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable on 02.03.2016. The appellant then filed these writ appeals.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant's case: Notice of motion was admitted on 27.11.2015; Speaker then had no power to gather more material; communication under Section 6(14) was issued; the entire procedure adopted is not in consonance with the Act; the notice of motion did not comply with the requirement that the allegations be signed by the requisite number of members (only one member signed the annexure). Also, the Speaker's function under Section 6 is statutory and justiciable.
Respondents' case: The motion has not been admitted yet; it was only formally moved on the floor of the house and the Speaker is in the process of consideration under Section 6(3) and (4); the impugned communication does not preclude the Upa-Lokayukta from working; the petitioner's assumption of admission is baseless; the Speaker is examining a prima facie case; the writ petition is premature and impermissible.
Judgment Excerpts
a motion for removal of Justice Subhash B. Adi, Hon’ble Upa-Lokayukta was moved in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly by Shri Tanvir Sait, Hon’ble Member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly on 27.11.2015
the Upa-Lokayukta is precluded from discharging his duties during the pendency of the motion for his removal before the House or Houses of the State Legislature.
The Hon’ble Speaker is now seized of the motion for removal of the Upalokayuktha, who is in the process of consideration of the said motion in terms of Section 6 (3) and (4) of the Act.
Procedural History
Appellant appointed as Upa-Lokayukta in 2013. Notice of motion for his removal signed by 78 members given to Speaker on 27.11.2015. Registrar of Lokayukta sought information; communication dated 30.11.2015 (received 04.12.2015) informed that motion moved and Section 6(14) applied. Appellant filed W.P. No. 58103/2015 on 17.12.2015 seeking quashing of communication and declaration. At preliminary hearing on 18.12.2015, Advocate General submitted communication did not preclude duties; time granted for objections. Respondents filed preliminary objections on 31.12.2015 asserting motion not admitted, Speaker examining under Section 6(3) and (4). Appellant filed rejoinder on 31.12.2015 alleging admission of motion and procedural flaws. Appellant filed I.A.1/2016 for amendment adding prayers for declaration and stay. Single Judge dismissed writ petition as not maintainable on 02.03.2016. Writ appeals filed; preliminary hearing by Division Bench on 26.04.2016.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984: 6(2), 6(3), 6(4), 6(14)
- Karnataka High Court Act, 1961: 4
