HC to give ruling on Lokayukta row on Monday

During its rejoinder to the respondents to the petition,the government denied the allegations that it had suppressed facts related to the case from the court. However,Advocate General Kamal Trivedi handed over a sealed cover containing the ‘missing documents’ and added that they did not put it before the court as they were not relevant to the facts of the case.

On August 25,Governor Kamla Beniwal had appointed Mehta as the Lokayukta. And the appointment was challenged by the government at the HC calling it unconstitutional. The government has said that under the constitutional provisions,the Governor cannot appoint the Lokayukta without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister.

The petition was heard by a division bench of Justices Akil Kureshi and Sonia Gokani.

On Wednesday,the respondent lawyers had argued that the government had not produced the entire correspondence with the Governor related to the issue,including details about an ordinance to amend the Lokayukta Act,which it had sent to be signed by the Governor.

The respondents had stated that the draft ordinance had eliminated the role of the Chief Justice of HC and the Governor in the appointment procedure for Lokayukta. Following this,the court had asked the government to put all these details related to the ordinance and the correspondence between Modi and Beniwal between August 17 and August 26 in a sealed cover before the court.

While producing these documents today,Trivedi told the court that there was no communication between the CM and the Governor after August 18.

The AG argued that the government was well within the democratic values to send the ordinance to the Governor.

He added that the ordinance was aimed at widening the scope of the Lokayukta jurisdiction to even local institutes of self-governance and to make it a multi-member institute.

In the rejoinder to the respondents,the AG also stated that except for certain areas expressly marked by the Constitution,the Governor cannot act in discretion and that she has to work under the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.

He also argued that if the Governor started exercising discretion in other matters,it would create two power centers in the state.

After the conclusions of the arguments,the court kept the matter for dictation of order on Monday.