On Lokpal, the Centre had told the apex court earlier this month that the appointment process was on, and a meeting of the selection committee chaired by the Prime Minister was held on March 1. The court will hear the matter next on April 12.
The Supreme Court on Friday asked 10 states and the Union Territory of Puducherry to explain why they had not appointed a Lokayukta or Up- Lokayukta and what steps had been taken to fill the post. “It appears that… Jammu & Kashmir, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Puducherry, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Tripura, West Bengal and Arunachal Pradesh have not appointed any Lokpal, Lokayukta or Up-Lokayukta,” said a bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and R Banumathi. It asked the chief secretaries to “inform the court within two weeks as to whether steps have been taken for appointment of Lokyukta/ Up-Lokayukta and if so the stage thereof.”
“The reasons for non-appointment of Lokayukta/ Up-Lokayukta…be also laid before the court in the aforesaid affidavit(s) to be filed by the chief secretaries,” the bench directed. The bench also asked the Odisha government to apprise it on the status of the Lokayukat, if any, in the state.
The bench was hearing a PIL filed by Delhi BJP leader and advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, seeking appointment of the anti-corruption ombudsman as laid down in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. He contended that though the Act received presidential assent on January 1, 2014 and came into force from January 16, 2014, the executive had not acted on it yet.
“Section 63 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, envisages that every state shall establish a body to be known as the Lokayukta within a period of one year from the date of commencement of the Act. However, many states have not done so till date. And many states have not passed the Lokayukta Act in consonance with the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013,” he said in his plea.
“An autonomous Lokpal at the Centre and an independent Lokayukta in all the states, in the spirit of the Act 2013, is necessary for redressal of citizens’ grievances related to corruption in a time-bound manner, and a citizens’ charter in every department is necessary to ensure time-bound delivery of goods and services,” he said, as he sought direction to the states to provide adequate budgetary allocation and essential infrastructure for effective functioning of Lokayuktas.
During the hearing, the bench asked advocate Gopal Shankaranarayanan, appearing for Upadhyay, which states had appointed Lokayukta. When the counsel replied that he did not have the requisite information, the bench referred to a note and said the 10 states and Puducherry did not appear to have filled the vacancies yet.
On Odisha, there was no clarity on whether the state had a Lokayukta. Accordingly, the bench directed its chief secretary to file an affidavit “as to whether the office of the Lokayuka/ Up-Lokayukta in the state is functional.”
On Lokpal, the Centre had told the apex court earlier this month that the appointment process was on, and a meeting of the selection committee chaired by the Prime Minister was held on March 1. The court will hear the matter next on April 12.