Conversion of Lok Ayukta declarations to recommendations is valid; ninety-day inaction constitutes deemed acceptance.

Two Public Interest Litigations (PILs) were filed challenging the Kerala Lok Ayukta (Amendment) Act, 2022 (Act 7 of 2024)

The petitioners, an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly and a private citizen, contested the amendments to Sections 2, 3, and 14 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 (KLAA)

Under the unamended Act, a "declaration" by the Lok Ayukta that a public servant (including the Chief Minister) should not continue in office was binding on the competent authority

The amendment replaced "declaration" with "recommendation," allowing the competent authority—now defined as the State Legislative Assembly for the Chief Minister and the Speaker for MLAs—to "examine" and potentially reject the report

The petitioners argued this amendment denuded the Lok Ayukta of its authority, subjected judicial findings to executive/legislative review, and violated the basic structure of the Constitution

The court primarily applied the provisions of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, as amended by Act 7 of 2024

It relied on Articles 163 and 164 of the Constitution, which establish that Ministers hold office during the "pleasure" of the Governor

The court followed the precedent in Justice Chandrashekaraiah v. Janekere C. Krishna (2013) 3 SCC 117, which characterized the Lok Ayukta as a sui generis quasi-judicial authority, distinct from a Court or Tribunal

Applying Anjum Kadari v. Union of India (2024), the court held that ordinary statutes cannot be challenged solely for violating the "basic structure" unless they infringe upon specific constitutional provisions

To prevent statutory absurdity, the court applied the doctrine of Casus Omissus, as seen in X (Juvenile) v. State of Karnataka (2024) 8 SCC 473, to read "deemed acceptance" into the amended Section 14(2)

The court rejected the contention that the Lok Ayukta is a Court or Tribunal, affirming its status as a sui generis investigative body whose reports do not determine the rights of parties

Consequently, the legislature's decision to treat the report as a "recommendation" rather than a binding "declaration" does not constitute an impermissible "administrative review" of a judicial order

The court noted that the unamended Section 14 created a constitutional incongruity by allowing a statutory body to effectively terminate a Minister’s tenure, thereby overriding the Governor’s constitutional "pleasure" under Articles 163 and 164

The amendment was thus seen as a measure to align the KLAA with the constitutional framework

Regarding the lack of a "deemed acceptance" clause in the 90-day review period for the Assembly, the court held that to prevent the Act from becoming "toothless" or "otiose," it was necessary to read in a provision that if the recommendation is not rejected within 90 days, it shall be "deemed to have been accepted"

The court held that the amendments do not violate the separation of powers or judicial independence

However, it interpreted Section 14(2) to include a "deemed acceptance" provision: if the State Legislature (the competent authority) fails to reject the Lok Ayukta's report within 90 days, the recommendation is deemed accepted, triggering further action under Section 12(5)

The writ petitions were disposed of with this clarification