HC declines stay on amendments to State Lokayukta Act

0
46

Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench, has refused to grant an interim stay on the Nagaland Lokayukta (First Amendment) Act, 2019 and the Nagaland Lokayukta (Second Amendment) Act, 2022, which pertain to the composition of the Search Committee and eligibility criteria for appointment of Lokayukta, respectively.
According to LiveLaw report, a division bench comprising Justices Devashis Baruah and Budi Habung, while hearing a PIL, observed that a stay on an enactment or its amendment can be granted only if found to be ultra vires to the Constitution, to a Central Act, or beyond the State’s legislative competence– findings that can only be determined upon culmination of the proceedings. The PIL challenges the two amendments on grounds that they are in conflict with the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, specifically regarding the Search Committee’s composition and the eligibility criteria for Lokayukta appointments.
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioners argued that the Nagaland Lokayukta Act, 2017, derived from Sec. 63 of the 2013 Act, must align with the parent legislation. Any deviation in the amendments, therefore, would render them incompatible with the Central Act. On the other hand, Advocate General of Nagaland contended that the amendments were necessitated by the non-availability of Supreme Court or High Court judges in the State to serve on the Search Committee. He further argued that the 2013 Act is silent on eligibility for Lokayukta in States and that the Search Committee provisions under the 2013 Act apply only to Lokpal, not Lokayuktas.
He emphasized the doctrine of separation of powers, stating that legislative enactments—whether principal or amending—should not be stayed unless clearly proven unconstitutional or procedurally flawed. Upholding this argument, the Court remarked: “Taking into account the doctrine of separation of powers between the Executive, the Legislative as well as Judiciary, in our opinion it would not be proper to stay the Amending Acts of 2019 and 2022.”
However, it clarified that any appointments made under the amended Acts would be subject to the outcome of the ongoing proceedings. The Court has directed the State to file its affidavit by April 25, and listed the matter for hearing on May 7.
The interim relief sought by the petitioners was not extended.