SC objects to Meghalaya HC verdict on state Lokayukta law

Supreme Court today came down heavily on a Meghalaya High Court verdict staying certain provisions of the eligibility criteria for state Lokayukta after taking suo motu cognizance of the matter, saying it was a "sad, sad scenario" which is "impermissible and unacceptable" in law.
A bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra partly set aside the High Court order pertaining to the stay of some provisions of the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act, 2014.
However, it concurred with the High Court's direction on the issue of setting up of the State Human Rights Commission and asked Meghalaya government to make the panel functional by end of June this year.

The bench, also comprising Justice Shiva Kirti Singh, termed as "clearly impermissible" the suo motu cognizance taken by the High Court on the issue pertaining to the appointment of Lokayukta and constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Lokayukta Act.
Quoting several cases and writings, the bench said "the necessity has arisen again for reiteration of the fundamental principle to be adhered to by a Judge. It is because the order impugned herein presents a sad, sad scenario, definitely and absolutely an impermissible and unacceptable one."
The apex court also said the High Court, with an "erroneous understanding of fundamental principle of law", scanned the legal provisions which is "clearly impermissible".

"Be it noted, the constitutional courts can entertain letter petitions and deal with them as writ petitions. But it will depend upon the nature of the issue sought to be advanced. There cannot be uncontrolled or unguided exercise of epistolary jurisdiction.

"In the instant case, as is evident, the High Court has compared the provisions pertaining to appointment of Chairperson and Members under the Act with the provisions of other Acts enacted by different legislatures," the bench said.
Observing that the legislature had passed the law "in its wisdom", it said there was no challenge to the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Act. "The suo motu petition was registered for giving effect to the Act by bringing the institutions into existence."

The bench, in its verdict, however, said, "there can be
no doubt, the court can initiate suo motu proceedings in respect of certain issues which come within the domain of public interest".
It also said the "suo motu public interest litigation" can be initiated to ameliorate the plight of disadvantaged sections of the society.
Referring to the facts of the case, the court said, "the High Court could not have proceeded as if it was testing the validity of the provision and granted stay. The approach is totally fallacious."
"Having opined aforesaid, we have no option but to set aside that part of the order which deals with the provisions of the Act.

"We do not intend to express any opinion with regard to validity of any provision contained in the Act. We also do not think it condign to direct that the establishment under the said Act should become operational within any fixed time...In view of the aforesaid analysis, the appeal is partly allowed and the direction pertaining to the stay of the provisions of the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act, 2014 is set aside."
The apex court then directed that State Human Rights Commission "shall become functional by end of June, 2016" and went on to dispose of the petition which was pending in the high court.