# MR. JUSTICE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH (RETD.) v. JANEKERE C. KRISHNA & ORS. ETC - **Citation:** [2013] 3 S.C.R. 987 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2013-01-11 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos.197-199 of 2013 - **Bench:** K.S. Radhakrishnan, Madan B. Lokur - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mr-justice-chandrashekaraiah-retd-v-janekere-c-krishna-ors-etc-28950 - **Pages:** 95 ## Headnote Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 - s.3(2)(a) and (b) - Appointment of Lokayukta I Upa Lokayukta under the Act by A B the Governor of Karnataka - Nature and procedure to be C followed - Requirement of 'consultation' in the context of appointment process - Meaning of - Held: The Governor of the State can appoint Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta only on the advice tendered by the Chief Minister- The Chief Minister is mandatorily required to consult the Chief Justice of the High D Court and four other consultees - The consultation must be meaningful and effective - However, the advice tendered by the Chief Minister will have primacy and not that of the consultees including the Chief Justice of the High Court - On facts, the Chief Minister erred in not consulting the Chief E Justice of the High Court in the matter of appointment of appellant as Upa Lokayukta - Appointment of appellant was in violation of s.3(2)(b) of the Act since the Chief Justice of the High Court was not consulted nor was the name deliberated upon before advising or appointing him as Upa F Lokayukta - Consequently appellant has no authority to continue or hold the post of Upa Lokayukta. Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984- s.3(2)(a) and (b)- State of Karnataka - Duties and functions of the Lokayukta I Upa Lokayukta - Nature of - Discussed. G The office of the Karnataka Upa Lokayukta fell vacant. The Chief Minister of the Karnataka State initiated steps for filling up that vacancy and following that 987 H 988 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R. A advised the Governor to appoint Justice B Chandrashekaraiah as Upa Lokayukta. The Governor, accepting the advice of the Chief Minister, passed order dated 20.01.2012 appointing Justice Chandrashekaraiah as the Upa Lokayukta. The Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court addressed a letter dated 04.02.2012 to the Chief Minister stating that he was not consulted in the matter of appointment of Justice Chandrashekaraiah as Upa Lokayukta and that the appointment was not in C conformity with the constitutional provisions and requested for recalling the appointment. Subsequently, two writ petitions were filed in public interest for quashing the appointment of Justice Chandrashekaraiah as Upa Lokayukta. A writ of quo warranto was also preferred D against the functioning of Justice Chandrashekaraiah as Upa Lokayukta. The High Court held that since there was no consultation with the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High E Court specifically on the appointment of Justice Chandrashekaraiah as an Upa-lokayukta, his appointment, therefore, was void ab initio. The High Court held that under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, the opinion expressed by the Chief Justice of the High F Court of Karnataka has primacy while tendering advice by the Chief Minister of the State to the Governor and that since, the. order passed by the Governor of Karnataka, appointing Justice Chandrashekaraiah as Upa Lokayukta, was without consulting the Chief Justice of G the l:ligh Court, the same was illegal. In the instant appeals preferred by Justice Chandrashekaraiah and the State of "Karnataka, the question which arose for consideration was whether the view of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka H has got primacy while making appointment to the post JUSTICE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH (RETD.). v. . 989 JANEKERE C. KRISHNA of Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta by the Governor of A . Karnataka in exercise of powers conferred on him under Section 3(2)(a) and (b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. Disposing ofthe appeals, the Court Per Radhakrishnan, J. . B HELD: 1.1. The functions to be discharged by Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta are investigative in nature and the report of Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta under c sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 12 of the Act and the Special Report ~ubmitted under sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Act are only recommendatory. No civil . consequence as such follows from the action of Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta, though they can initiate o pro ## Text _Characters 0–39,874 of 177,919. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39874 for what follows._ [2013] 3 S.C.R. 987 MR. JUSTICE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH (RETD.) v. JANEKERE C. KRISHNA & ORS. ETC. (Civil Appeal Nos.197-199 of 2013) JANUARY 11, 2013 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 - s.3(2)(a) and (b) - Appointment of Lokayukta I Upa Lokayukta under the Act by A B the Governor of Karnataka - Nature and procedure to be C followed - Requirement of 'consultation' in the context of appointment process - Meaning of - Held: The Governor of the State can appoint Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta only on the advice tendered by the Chief Minister- The Chief Minister is mandatorily required to consult the Chief Justice of the High D Court and four other consultees - The consultation must be meaningful and effective - However, the advice tendered by the Chief Minister will have primacy and not that of the consultees including the Chief Justice of the High Court - On facts, the Chief Minister erred in not consulting the Chief E Justice of the High Court in the matter of appointment of appellant as Upa Lokayukta - Appointment of appellant was in violation of s.3(2)(b) of the Act since the Chief Justice of the High Court was not consulted nor was the name deliberated upon before advising or appointing him as Upa F Lokayukta - Consequently appellant has no authority to continue or hold the post of Upa Lokayukta. Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984- s.3(2)(a) and (b)- State of Karnataka - Duties and functions of the Lokayukta I Upa Lokayukta - Nature of - Discussed. G The office of the Karnataka Upa Lokayukta fell vacant. The Chief Minister of the Karnataka State initiated steps for filling up that vacancy and following that 987 H 988 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R. A advised the Governor to appoint Justice B Chandrashekaraiah as Upa Lokayukta. The Governor, accepting the advice of the Chief Minister, passed order dated 20.01.2012 appointing Justice Chandrashekaraiah as the Upa Lokayukta. The Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court addressed a letter dated 04.02.2012 to the Chief Minister stating that he was not consulted in the matter of appointment of Justice Chandrashekaraiah as Upa Lokayukta and that the appointment was not in C conformity with the constitutional provisions and requested for recalling the appointment. Subsequently, two writ petitions were filed in public interest for quashing the appointment of Justice Chandrashekaraiah as Upa Lokayukta. A writ of quo warranto was also preferred D against the functioning of Justice Chandrashekaraiah as Upa Lokayukta. The High Court held that since there was no consultation with the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High E Court specifically on the appointment of Justice Chandrashekaraiah as an Upa-lokayukta, his appointment, therefore, was void ab initio. The High Court held that under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, the opinion expressed by the Chief Justice of the High F Court of Karnataka has primacy while tendering advice by the Chief Minister of the State to the Governor and that since, the. order passed by the Governor of Karnataka, appointing Justice Chandrashekaraiah as Upa Lokayukta, was without consulting the Chief Justice of G the l:ligh Court, the same was illegal. In the instant appeals preferred by Justice Chandrashekaraiah and the State of "Karnataka, the question which arose for consideration was whether the view of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka H has got primacy while making appointment to the post JUSTICE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH (RETD.). v. . 989 JANEKERE C. KRISHNA of Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta by the Governor of A . Karnataka in exercise of powers conferred on him under Section 3(2)(a) and (b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. Disposing ofthe appeals, the Court Per Radhakrishnan, J. . B HELD: 1.1. The functions to be discharged by Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta are investigative in nature and the report of Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta under c sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 12 of the Act and the Special Report ~ubmitted under sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Act are only recommendatory. No civil . consequence as such follows from the action of Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta, though they can initiate o prosecution before a competent court. Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Act clearly indicate that Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta are discharging quasi-judicial functions while conducting the investigation under the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act also states that for the purpose E any such investig~tion, including the pretiminary inquiry Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta shall have all the powers I of a Civil Court while trying a suit .under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the matter of summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining F him on oath. Further they have also the power for requiring the discovery and p"roduction of any document, receiving evidence on affidavits, requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or office, issuing commissions for examination of witnesses of documents etc. Further, sub-section (3) of Section 11 stipulates that G any proceedings before the Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta, whilt! H 990 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R. A investigating the matters are discharging quasi-judicial functions, though the nature of functions is investigative. [Paras 25, 33] [1024-A-B; 1027-B-F] 1.2. The Governor, as per Section 3(2)(a) of the 8 Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, is empowered to appoint Lokayukta on the advice tendered by the Chief Minister, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka, the Chairman, Karnataka Legislative Council, the Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly, C the Leader of the Opposition in the Karnataka Legislative Council and the Leader of the Opposition in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly. It is, therefore, clear that all the above five dignitaries have to be consulted before tendering advice by the Chief Minister to the Governor of the State. Section 3(2)(b) of the Act stipulates that, so far D as the Upa Lokayukta is concerned, he shall be a person who has held the office of a Judge of the High Court and shall be appointed on the advice tendered by the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister has to consult the five dignitaries, the Chief Justice of the High Court of E Karnataka, the Chairman, Karnataka Legislative Council, the Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly, the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council and the Leader of Opposition in the Karnataka Legislative Assembl.y. Therefore, for the purpose of appointment of F Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta all the five consultees are common. The appointment has to be made by the Governor on the advice tendered by the Chief Minister in consultation with those five dignitaries. [Paras 36, 37] [1029-F-H; 1030-A-D] G . 1.3. The language employed in Section 3(2)(a) and (b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 is clear and unambiguous and one has to apply the golden rule of interpretation i.e. the literal interpretation. When the H language is plain and unambiguous and admits of only • . ':JUSTICE 'Cl;iANDRASHEKARAIAH:(RETD.):v:: 991 • JANEKERE C. KRISHNA' one'. meaning .no question .of construction of a statute A arises, forthe Act speaks for itself. Section 3(2)(a)"and (b) ' when read literally and contextually admit of no doubt that· the Governor; of the: State can 'appoint· Lokayukta or- Upa . Lokayukta;only:on the ·advice .ten.dered• by .the Chief Minister and that.the Chief Justice ·'. t;-:1i:-"·:_r. :!r:·.-~; ... ~~·.·--~- :-- , ,1.4. The Ch ref Mrnrster 1s legally obliged to consult the .~-l" .,\ q,\<·. '' .,.l. I! '" ;,_, , '11: -:~.}JI[;" "">II) Chief Justice of the High Court and other four consultees, •. /• ,_J -d' '· ·-"~!. ~ ~,·;. · ;,; '. t·'~ · -,.·;1\-I ~ • • , __ ,,:·~· ,. _whrch is.a: mandatory, requirement.The consultation must be meanin 1gfu1 1and effective "a net' mere ell citing ttie viiiws' D - , I - : '. l. , j I j - j: • '.' ' ••. ' . '; ~\ , • . • . ' -• - I'_, I! • 1 • 'I or calling for recommendations would not suffice; ,- •' · ., ,,, • .. ) ... ~J.,.O•i • .i ;.'•_, 0 ••.:: .• · "I• ~ 1.-i ··' :•)'"•••<' ,;,_ C~nsulte~s:~?n ~~gge~tJ va.~!o~s .~~mes, fro~ ~~.El, ~o,p~c~~ stipulated m the statute and those,names .have to be ' ' • ' • • • }·· .... - ,• .: > • ~ • j_ • ' • discussed either in a meeting to be ·convened by the Chief Minister;of1the State for that purpose· or by.way of E circulation; ·The Chie~ Minister,' if. proposes :,to :suggest. or advise-any; name from:the;s_ource~ear-marked1 in :the srtatute 1that must (·alsotbe::made .available ito. ttie Chief. Minister of the·State is free to advise:a:name whic!J· has :come up~foriconsideration:amongrthe, consultees to tJ'le: Governor of. tl'Je ·State; The. advicei te,1_1der~.~ ~Y .. t!J.~ ~h,i~f,~!ni.s.ter ~ill ~av~ prim~C?Y. and. not G that of the, consultees including the Chief'Justice of the Higllcoi.irt.i [Para's31'c1041~..\-EJ'·'' ,...,,L·l: ,,,:·:• v .• ," -~··~'" •,,J1!~_:11i... .. -'':" · ~-;i~,n_,.-f; 1~-... tr;J' .. ';~i "!~~:;,_;;; ·~~fl~ -1, :'' .. 1.5;tlt can riot be.said that .since •the ·source (from> which ta candidate.1has: to be :advised·.for :the :post·of: Lokayukta:hUpa' Lokayukta) consists~of1persons·who, H / /, 992 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R. A have held the office of the Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court, the Chief Justice of the High Court would be in a better position to compare the merits and demerits of those candidates. Apart from a person's competence, integrity and character as a Judge, various s other information have also to be gathered since the persons who fall in that source are retired judges. Government has its own machinery and system to gather various information about retired Judges. The Chief Minister cannot advise a name from that source without c making a meaningful and effective consultation after disclosing the relevant materials. This is a sufficient safeguard against arbitrary selection and advice. Further the duties and functions of the Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta are investigative in nature and their orders as 0 such cannot be executed. In such situation, the legislature, in its wisdom, felt that no primacy need be attached to views of the consultees including the Chief Justice but on the advice of the Chief Minister; [Para 64) [1047-G-H; 1048-A-C]. E 1.6. Nothing spells out from the language used in Section 3(2)(a) and (b) to hold that primacy be attached to the opinion expressed by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka. The various directions given by the High Court holding that the views of the Chief Justice has · F got primacy, is beyond the scope of the Act and the High Court has indulged in a legislative exercise which is impermissible in law. Therefore, all the directions issued by the High Court, are set aside since they are beyond the scope of the Act. [Para 65) [1048-0-F] G 1.7. The Chief Minister has however committed an error in not consulting the Chief Justice of the High Court in the matter ·of appointment of Justice Chandrashekaraiah as Upa Lokayukta. Records indicate that there was no meaningful and effective consultation H or discussion of the names suggested among the JUSTICE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH (RETD.) v. 993 JANEKERE C. KRISHNA consultees before advising the Governor for appointment A to the post of Upa Lokayukta. The appointment of Justice Chandrashekaraiah as Upa Lokayukta, therefore, is in violation of Section 3(2)(b) of the Act since the Chief Justice of the High Court was not consulted nor was the cname deliberated upon before advising or appointing him B as Upa Lokayukta, consequently, the appointment of · Justice Chandrasekharaiah as Upa Lokayukta cannot stand in the eye of law and he has no authority to continue or hold the post of Upa Lokayukta of the State. [Para 66) [1048-F-H; 1049-A-B] C 1.8. The Chief Minister of the State is directed to take appropriate steps for app~intment of Upa Lokayukta in the State of Karnataka, in accordance with law. Since nothing adverse has been found against Justice Chandrasekharaiah, his name can still be considered for D appointment to the post of Upa Lokayukta along with other names, if any, suggested by the other five consultees under the Act. However, it is made clear that there is no primacy in the views expressed by any of the consultees and after due deliberations of the names E suggested by the consultees including the name, if any suggested by the Chief Minister, the Chief Minister can advise any name from the names discussed to the Governor of the State for appointment of Upa Lokayukta under the Act. [Para 67) [1049-B-E] F Justice K.P. Mahapatra v. Sri Ram Chandra Nayak and Ors. 2002 (8) SCC 1: 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 166; Nagendra Nath Bora and Another v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam and Others AIR 1958 SC 398: 1958 SCR G 1240; Indian National Congress (/) v. Institute of social Welfare and Others (2002) 5 .sec 685: 2002 (3) SCR 1040; Automotive Tyre Manufactures Association v. Designated Authority and Others (2011) 2 SCC 258: 2011 (1) SCR 198; State of Gujarat v. Hon'~le Mr. Justice R.A. Mehta (Retd.) H 994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R. A. 2013 (1) SCALE 7; Chandra Mohan v. State of UP. 1967 (1) SCR 77; Chandramouleshwar Prasad v. Patna High Court (1969) 3 SCC 56: 1970 (2) SCR 666; Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (1974) 2 SCC 831: 1975 (1) SCR 814; Union of India v. Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth and Another B (1977) 4 SCC 193: 1978 (1) SCR 423; Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Others v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 441: 1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 659; Union of India and Others v. Kali Dass Balish and Another (2006) 1 SCC 779: 2006 (1) SCR 261; Ashish Handa, Advocate v. c Hon'b/e the Chief Justice of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others (1996) 3 SCC 145: 1996 (3) SCR 474; Ashok Tanwar and Another v. State of H.P. and Others (2005) 2 SCC 104: 2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 1065; N. Kannadasan v. Ajoy Khose and Others (2009) 7 SCC 1: 2009 (7) SCR 668 0 and Kanai/al Sur v. Paramnidhi Sadhu Khan AIR 1957 SC 907: 1958 SCR 360 - referred to. Empror v. Benoari/a/ Sarma AIR 1945 PC 48- referred to. E Per Lokur, J. [Concurring] HELD: 1.1. The broad spectrum of functions, powers, duties and responsibilities of the Upa-lokayukta, as statutorily prescribed, clearly bring out that not only does he perform quasi-judicial functions, as contrasted with F purely administrative or executive functions, but that the Upa-lokayukta is more than an investig~tor or an enquiry officer. At the same time, notwithstanding his status, he is not placed on the pedestal of a judicial authority rendering a binding decision. He is placed somewhere in G between an investigator and a judicial authority, having the elements of both. For want of a better expression, the office of an Upa-lokayukta can only be described as a sui generis quasi-judicial authority. [Para 27] [1057-E-H] H 1.2. In the appointment of the Upa-lokayukta, the JUSTICE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH (RETD.) v. 995 JANEKERE C. KRISHNA Chief Minister must consult not only the Chief Justice but A several other constitutional authorities also and given the fact that the Upa-Lokayukta is not a purely judicial authority, it hardly matters who initiates the process of appointment of the Upa-Lokayukta. Ordinarily, it must be the Chief Minister since he has to tender advice to the B Governor and, in a sense, the appointment is his primary responsibility. But this does not preclude any of the other constitutional authorities who are required to be consulted from bringing it to the notice of the Chief Minister that the post of the Upa-Lokayukta needs to be c filled up and that the appointment process ought to commence - nothing more than that. None of them ought to suggest a name since constitutional courtesy would demand that only the Chief Minister should initiate the appointment process. There is no reason to hold that 0 merely because the Upa-Lokayukta is a sui generis quasijudicial authority, only the Chief Justice must initiate the process of appointment. The selection of the Upalokayukta is a consultative process involving several constitutional authorities and in the context of the Act, no E constitutional authority is subordinate to the other. It cannot be said that the recommendation for appointing the Upa-lokayukta under the Act must emanate only from the Chief Justice and only the name recommended by him should be considered. [Paras 45, 47] [1064-G-H; 1065A-D; 1066-A-B] 1.3. There is a clear distinction between 'consultation' F in the appointment of a judge of a superior court and · 'consultation' in the appointment to a statutory judicial • position. For the former, the Chief Justice must consult G the collegiums of Judges, while it is not necessary for the latter. An Upa-lokayukta is not a judicial authority, let alone a constitutional authority like a judge of a High Court. Therefore, mandatory consultation in the appointment process as postulated by Section 3(2)(b) of H 996 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R. A the Act is with the Chief Justice in his individual capacity and not consultation in a collegial capacity. [Paras 56, 58] [1070-A-B, E-F] 1.4. There are absolutely no 'consultation' guidelines 8 laid down in the Act. It is not necessary to circumscribe the manner of consultation. The Chief Minister may consult the other constitutional authorities collectively or in groups or even individually - this hardly matters as long as there is meaningful and effective consultation. Similarly, it is not necessary to restrict the mode of C consultation. It may be in a meeting or through correspondence. Today, with available technology, consultation may even be through a video link. The form of consultation or the venue of consultation is not important - what is important is the substance of the D consultation. The· matter has to be looked at pragmatically and not semantically. It is important that no constitutional authority is kept in the dark about the name of any candidate under consideration and each constitutional authority mentioned in Section 3(2)(b) of the Act must E know the recommendation made by one another for appointment as an Upa-Lokayukta. In addition, they must have before them full and identical facts. As long as these basic requirements are met, 'consultation' could be said to have taken place. [Paras 59, 60] [1070-G; 1071-A-E] F 1.5. In the instant case, there was no 'consultation' between the various constitutional authorities before the Chief Minister recommended the name of Justice Chandrashekharaiah. In response to the letter of the Chief Minister, the Chief Justice recommended the name of G Justice Rangavittalachar; the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly recommended Justice Chandrashekharaiah; the Chairman of the Legislative Council recommended Justice Chandrashekharaiah; the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly recommended H Justice Mohammed Anwar and Justice Ramanna; the JUSTICE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH (RETD.) v. 997 JANEKERE C. KRISHNA Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council A recommended Justice Mohammed Anwar and Justice Ramanna. Therefore, as many as four retired judges were recommended for appointment as Upa-lokayukta. It is not clear whether the names of all these judges were disclosed to all the constitutional authorities. The name B of Justice Chandrashekharaiah was certainly not disclosed to the Chief Justice, as is evident from his letter dated 4th February 2012 wherein he stated four times that he was not consulted on the appointment of Justice Chandrashekharaiah. The contents of this letter are not . c denied by the ~tate and are quite obviously admitted. Significantly, the Chief Minister did not reply to this letter. Clearly, the Chief Justice was kept in the dark about the · name of a candidate and there was no full and complete disclosure of facts. Ergo, the Chief Minister did not 0 . recommend the name of Justice Chandrashekharaiah in consultation with the Chief Justice. This was contrary to the mandatory requirement of Section 3(2)(b) of the Act and so, it must be held that the appointment of Justice Chandrashekharaiah was void ab initio. [Paras 61, 62) [1071-F-H; 1072-A-B; 1073-A-B] E 1.6. 'Consultation' for the purposes of Section 3(2)(b) of the Act does not.and cannot postulate concurrence or · consent. There is always a possibility of an absence of agreement on any one . single person . being F recommendett for appointment as an Upa-lokayukta, as has actually happened in the present case. In such a · situation, it is ultimately· the decision of the Chief Minister what advice to tender to the Governor, since he alone has to take the final call. [Para 67) [1074-G-H; 1075-A] G 1.7. There is· no reason why the Chief Minister cannot adv.ice the Governor to appoint a person · not recommended by any of the constitutional authorities, as long as he consults them - the 'consu:tation' being in the manner postulated above. The Chief Minister can H 998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 3 S.C.R. A recommend a completely different person, other than any of those recommended by any of the constitutional authorities as long as he does not keep them in the dark about the name of the candidate and there is a full and complete disclosure of all relevant facts. On the facts of B this case, there was no consultation between the Chief Minister and the Chief Justice on the appointment of Justice Chandrashekharaiah as an Upa•lokayukta. His appointment was, therefore, void ab initio. [Para 68, 69) [1075-A-C, F-G] c 1.8. As far as Section 3(2)(b) of the Act is concerned, the primary 'responsibility' for the appointment of the UpaLokayukta rests with the Chief Minister who has to advice the Governor. Since the Chief Justice is only one of the constitutional authorities required to be consulted by the D Chief Minister before advice is tendered to the Governor, it cannot be said that only his view would prevail over the views of other constitutional authorities. If that were so, then (to rephrase the High Court) consultation with the other constitutional authorities including the Chairman of E the Karnataka Legislative Council, the Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Council and the Leader of the Opposition in the Karnataka Legislative Council and in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly would be reduced to a farce. It must be appreciated that these constitutional F authorities also have an equal say in the executive governance of the State and there is nothing to suggest that their opinion should be subordinated to the opinion of the Chief Justice or that the Chief Justice can veto their views. On the other hand, since it is ultimately the Chief G Minister who has to advice the Governor, it is he alone who has to take the final call and shoulder the responsibility of correctly advising the Governor in the matter of appointing the most suitable person as an Upalokayukta. [Para 78) [1079-B-G] H 1.9. The mechanics of the working of a statute has JUSTICE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH (RETD.) v. 999 JANEKERE C. KRISHNA to be decoded from the contents of the statute and the A words used therein; otherwise there is a possibility of committing a serious error. A statute must be considered and understood on its own terms. In so construing the Act, there is no reason to accord primacy to the views of the Chief Justice in the appointment of an Upa-lokayukta B under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. [Para 79) [1079G-H; 1080-B-C] ~ 1.10. The doctrine of 'prospective overruling' has no application herein since there is no overwhelming reason to save the appointment of the Upa-lokayukta from attack. C There was no consultation with the Chief Justice specifically on the appointment of Justice Chandrashekharaiah as an Upa-Lokayukta. In absence of any consultation with the Chief Justice, the appointment of Justice Chandrashekharaiah as Upa-lokayukta is void D ab initio. [Paras 4, 81, 83) [1050-A-B; 1080-F; 1081-A-B] N. Gundappa v. State of Karnataka 1989 (3) KarLJ 425; State of Karnataka v. N. Gundappa ILR 1990 Kar 4188; Prof. S.N. Hegde v. The Lokayukta ILR 2004 Kar 3892; The Bharat E Bank Ltd., Delhi v. Employees of the Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi [1950) SCR 459; Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh and Others [1955) 1 SCR 267; Associated Cement Companies v. P.N. Sharma 1965 (2) SCR 366; Sarwan Singh Lamba v. Union of India (1995) 4 SCC 546: 1995 (1) F Suppl. SCR 427; S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 124: 1987 (1) SCR 435; Ashish Handa v. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of High Court of Punjab & Haryana and Others (1996) 3 SCC 145: 1996 (3) SCR 474; Ashok Tanwar and Another v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others (2005) 2 sec 104: 2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 1065; State of G Haryana v. National Consumer Awareness Group (2005) 5 SCC 284: 2005 (3) SCR 1158; N. Kannadasan v. Ajoy Khose and Others (2009) 7 SCC 1: 2009 (7) SCR 668; Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India AIR 1994 SC 268: 1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 659; Aruna Roy v. H 1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R. A Union of India (2002) 7 SCC 368: 2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 266; S.P. Gupta v. Union of India 1981 Supp SCC 87: 1982 SCR 365; Union of India v. Sankalchand Himmatlal Seth (1977) 4 SCC 193: 1978 (1) SCR 423; Indian Administrative Service (S. C. S.J Association U.P. and Others v. Union of India and B Others 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 730: 1992 (2) Suppl. SCR 389; M.M. Gupta v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1982) 3 SCC 412: 1983 (1) SCR 593; Justice K.P. Mahapatra v. Sri Ram Chandra Nayak (2002) 8 SCC 1: 2000 (4 ) Suppl. SCR 22 and Maharashtra State Financial Corporation v. Jaycee c Drugs and Pharmaceuticals (1991) 2 SCC 637: 1991 (1) SCR 480 - referred to. Case Law Reference: Per K.S. Radhakrishnan 1 J.: D 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 166 referred to Paras 13, 57, 59 1958 SCR 1240 referred to Para 30 E 2002 (3) SCR 1040 referred to Para 30 2011 (1) SCR 198 referred to Para 32 ··- 2013 (1) SCALE 7 referred to Para 48 1967 (1) SCR 77 referred to Para 50 F 1970 (2) SCR 666 referred to Para 50 1975 (1) SCR 814 referred to Para 51 '1978 (1) SCR 423 referred to Para 51 G 1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 659 referred to Para 52, 54, 55 2006 (1) SCR 261 referred to Para 53 1996 (3) SCR 474 referred to Para 54 H JUSTICE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH (RETD.) v. 1001 JANEKERE C. KRISHNA 2004 (6)' Suppl. SCR 1065 referred to Para 55 A 2009 (7) SCR 668 referred to Para 55 AIR 1945 PC 48 referred to Para 61 1958 SCR 360 referred to Para 61 B Per Madan B. Lokur, J.: 1989 (3) KarLJ 425 ~ referred to Para 9 1LR 1990 Kar 4188 referred to Para 10 c ILR 2004 Kar 3892 referred to Para 10 [1950] SCR 459 referred to Para 28 [1955] 1 SCR 267 referred to Para 30 1965 (2) SCR 366 referred to Para 31 D 1995 (1) Suppl. SCR 427 referred to Para 37, 38 1987 (1) SCR 435 referred to Para 37 ' 1996 (3) SCR 474 referred to Para 38, 39 E 2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 1065 referred to Para 39 2005 (3) SCR 1158 referred to Para 39 2009 (7) SCR 668 referred to Para 40 F 1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 659 referred to Para 51 2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 266 referred to Para, 53 1982 SCR 365 referred to Para 55 1978 (1) SCR 423 referred to Para 55 G 1992 (2) Suppl. SCR 389 referred to Para 63 1983 (1) SCR 593 referred to Para 68 2000. (4) Suppl. SCR 22 referred to Para 74 H A 1002 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R. 1991 (1) SCR 480 referred to Para 76 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 197-199 of 2013. From the Judgment & Order dated 03.04.2012 of the High B Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition Nos. 485253 of 2012 and Writ Petition No. 4962 of 2012. c D E WITH C.A. No. 200-202 of 2013 K.V. Viswanathan, P.V. Shetty, V.N. Ragupathy, Gautam Bharadwaj, Mahesh Agarwal, Akhil Anand, E.C. Agrawala, Rishi Agrawala, Ankur Saigal, Abhinav Agrawal for the Appellant. K.N. Bhat, Shailesh Madiyal, Anantha Narayana M.G., Navkesh Batra, Sandeep Narain Shalu Lal, S. Narain & Co. for the Respondents. The Judgments of the Court were delivered by K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The sentinel issue that has come up for consideration in these appeals is whether the views expressed by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka has got primacy while F making appointment to the post of Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta by the Governor of Karnataka in exercise of powers conferred on him under Section 3(2)(a) and (b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act'). 3. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court took G the view that under the Act the opinion expressed by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka has primacy while tendering advice by the Chief Minister of the State to the Governor. The Court held since, the order passed by the Governor of Karnataka, appointing Justice Chandrashekaraiah H JUSTICE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH (RETD.) v. 1003 JANEKERE C. KRISHNA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] as Upa Lokayukta on 21.1.2012, was without consulting the A Chief Justice of the High Court, the same was illegal. The High Court also issued various directions including the direction to the State and the Principal Secretary to the Governor to take steps for filling up the post of Upa Lokayukta in accordance with the directions contained in the judgment. Aggrieved by the B Judgment of the High Court, these appeals have been preferred by Justice Chandrashekaraiah and the State of Karnataka. Facts 4. The notification dated 21.1.2012 issued in the name of C the Governor was challenged by two practicing lawyers in public interest contending that the institution of Lokayukta was set up in the State for improving the standard of public administration by looking into complaints against administrative actions including cases of corruption, favouritism and official D indiscipline in administrative machinery and if the Chief Minister's opinion has primacy, then it would not be possible for the institution to work independently and impartially so as to achieve the object and purpose of the Act. 5. The office of the Karnataka Upa Lokayukta fell vacant on the resignation of Justice R. Gururajan and the Chief Minister initiated steps for filling up that vacancy. Following that, the Chief Minister on 18.10.2011 addressed separate letters E F to the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka, Ch~irman of the Karnataka Legislative Council, Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council and Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly requesting them to suggest a panel of eligible persons for appointment as Upa Lokayukta on or before 24.10.2011. G 6. The Chief Justice suggested the name of Mr. H. Rangavittalachar (Retd.), the Leader of the Opposition in the Karnataka Legislative Council and the Leader of the Oppqsition in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly suggested H 1004 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R. A the names of Mr. Justice K. Ramanna (Retd.) and Mr. Justice Mohammed Anwar (Retd.). The Chairman of the Karnataka Legislative Council and the Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly suggested the name of Justice Chandrashekaraiah (Retd.). The Chief Minister then advised B the Governor to appoint Justice Chandrashekaraiah as Upa Lokayukta. The Governor, accepting the advice of the Chief Minister, passed the order dated 20.1.2012 appointing Justice Chandrashekaraiah as the Upa Lokayukta. 7. The Chief Justice on 21.01.2012 received an invitation C for attending the oath taking ceremony of Justice Chandrashekaraiah as Upa Lokayukta in the morning which, according to the Chief Justice, was received only in the evening. The Chief Justice then addressed a letter dated 04.02.2012 to the Chief Minister stating that he was not D consulted in the matter of appointment of Justice Chandrashekaraiah as Upa Lokayukta and expressed the opinion that the appointment was not in conformity with the constitutional provisions and requested for recalling the E appointment. 8. The stand taken by the Chief Justice was widely published in various newspapers; following that, as already indicated, two writ petitions were filed in public interest for quashing the appointment of Justice Chandrashekaraiah as F Upa Lokayukta. A writ of quo warranto was also preferred against the functioning of Justice Chandrashekaraiah as Upa Lokayukta. Arguments G 9. Shri K.V. Viswanathan, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka took us extensively to the objects and reasons and to the various provisions of the Act and submitted that the nature and functions of the office of Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta are to carry out investigation and H enquiries and the institution of Lokayukta, as .such, does not JUSTICE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH (RETD.) v. 1005 JANEKERE C. KRISHNA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] form part of the judicial organ of the State. Learned senior A counsel also submitted that the functions and duties of the institution of Lokayukta, as such, cannot be compared with the functions and duties of the Judiciary, Central Administrative Tribunals, State Administrative Tribunals or Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums etc. B 10. Learned senior counsel, referring to the various provisions such as Sections 3, 7, 9 etc. of the Act, submitted that Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta are appointed for the purpose D of conducting investigations and enquiries and they are not C discharging any judicial functions as such and their reports are only recommendatory in nature. Consequently, the Act never envisaged vesting any primacy on the views of the Chief Justice of the High Court in the matter of appointment of Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta. In support of his contentions, reference was made to the various judgments of this Court, which we will discuss in the latter part of this judgment. Shri Viswanathan, however, has fairly submitted that, as per the Scheme of the Act, especially under Section 3(2)(a) and (b), before making appointment to the post of Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta, it is obligatory on the part of the Chief Minister to E consult the Chief Justice of the State High Court, even though the views of the Chief Justice has no primacy. Learned senior counsel submitted that the Governor has to act on the advice of the Chief Minister for filling up the post of Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta. 11. Shri P.V. Shetty, learned senior counsel appearing for Justice Chandrashekaraiah (retd.) submitted that the primacy in terms of Section 3 of the Act lies with the Chief Minister and F not with the Chief Justice. In support of his contention, reference G was made to the various judgments of this Court, which we will discuss in the latter part of the judgment. Learned senior counsel submitted that the judgment delivered by the High Court holding that the views of the Chief Justice has primacy relates to cases pertaining to appointment of the Judges of the H 1006 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R. A Supreme Court and High Courts, appointment of the President of State Consumer Forum, Central Administrative Tribunal and so on and the ratio laid down in those judgments is inapplicable while interpreting Section 3(2)(a) and (b) of the Act. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the reasoning of the High s Court that there should be specific consultations with regard to the names suggested by the Governor with the Chief Justice, is unsustainable in law. Shri P.V. Shetty also submitted that the expression 'consultation' cannot be understood to be consent of the constitutional authorities as contemplated in the section. c 12. Learned senior counsel submitted that the Chief Minister advised the name of Justice Chandrashekaraiah, suggested by some of the Consultees to the Governor who appointed him as Upa Lokayukta. Learned senior counsel submitted that assuming that the Chief Justice had not been D consulted, the views of the Chief Minister had primacy and the Governor rightly accepted the advice of the Chief Minister and appointed Justice Chandrashekaraiah as Upa Lokayukta. Learned senior counsel submitted that in any view the failure to consult the Chief Justice would not vitiate the decision E making process, since no primacy could be attached to the views of the Chief Justice. Learned senior counsel, therefore, submitted that the High Court has committed a grave error in quashing the notification appointing Justice Chandrashekaraiah as Upa Lokayukta. Learned senior counsel submitted that the F various directions given by the High Court in its judgment is in the realm of rule making which is impermissible in law. 13. Shri K.N. Bhat, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents endorsed the various directions given by the G High Court which according to him are of paramount importance considering the nature and functions to be discharged by Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta in the State of Karnataka. Learned senior counsel pointed out that the institution of Lokayukta has been set up for improving the H standards of public administration so as to examine the JUSTICE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH (RETD.) v. 1007 JANEKERE C. KRISHNA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] complaints made against administrative actions, including the A cases of corruption, favouritism and official indiscipline in administrative machinery. Shri Bhat compared the various provisions of the Act with the similar legislations in other States and submitted that, so far as the Karnataka Act is concerned, there is a multi-member team of consultees and also there is B no indication in the Act as to whose opinion should prevail over others. Considerable reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Justice K.P. Mohapatra v. Sri Ram Chandra Nayak and Ors. (2002) 8 SCC 1, wherein this Court has taken the view that the opinion of the Chief Justice has got primacy c which is binding on the State. Learned senior counsel submitted that the conduct and functions to be discharged by Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta are apparent, utmost importance has to be given in seeing that unpolluted administration of the State is maintained and maladministration is exposed. Learned senior 0 counsel submitted that the functions of the Kamataka Lokayukta are identical to that of Lokpal of Orissa and that the principle laid down in that judgment would also apply while interpreting Sections 3(2)(a) and (b) of the Act. 14. Learned senior counsel submitted that the primacy has E to be given to the views expressed by the Chief Justice, not because the persons appointed are discharging judicial or quasi-judicial functions but the source from which the persons are advised for appointment consists of former judges of the Supreme Court and Chief Justices of High Courts and judges F of the High Courts in the matter of appointment of Upa Lokayukta. Learned senior counsel submitted that the Chief Justice of the High Court, therefore, would be in a better position to know about suitability of the persons to be appointed to the posts since they were either former judges of G the Supreme Court or Chief Justices of the High Courts or judges of the High Courts. 15.