Supreme Court Upholds Lokayukta’s Power to Order Preliminary Inquiry: Office of the Odisha Lokayukta vs. Dr. Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi (23 February 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 23 February 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 131

Judges: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi

Can a Lokayukta direct the State Vigilance Department to conduct a preliminary inquiry into allegations of corruption against a public servant? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the powers of the Odisha Lokayukta under the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014. This case arose from a challenge to an order by the Odisha Lokayukta directing a preliminary inquiry by the Directorate of Vigilance. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case began with a complaint dated 9th December 2020, filed by Mr. Ranjan Kumar Das, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Cell Unit, Bhubaneswar, against Dr. Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi, an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) of Gopalpur Constituency. The complaint alleged serious corruption and possession of disproportionate assets by the MLA.

Following this, on 11th December 2020, the Odisha Lokayukta, acting under Section 20(1) of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014, directed the Directorate of Vigilance, Cuttack, to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the allegations. This order was challenged by Dr. Panigrahi by filing a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa.

The High Court, on 3rd February 2021, set aside the Lokayukta’s order, stating that the Lokayukta should conduct the preliminary inquiry through its own inquiry wing, not the Directorate of Vigilance. The Lokayukta’s review petition against this order was dismissed on 5th April 2021. Aggrieved by this, the Lokayukta appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The core legal framework for this case is the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014. Key provisions include:

✓ Section 2(d) defines “complaint” as an allegation that a public servant has committed an offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

✓ Section 2(l) defines “preliminary inquiry” as an inquiry conducted under this Act.

✓ Section 2(n) defines “public servant” as a person referred to in clauses (a) to (h) of sub-section (1) of section 14 but does not include a public servant in respect of whom the jurisdiction is exercisable by any court or other authority under the Army Act, 1950, the Air Force Act, 1950, the Navy Act, 1957 and the Coast Guard Act, 1978 or the procedure is applicable to such public servant under those Acts.

✓ Section 20(1) of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014, states:

The Lokayukta, on receipt of a complaint, if it decides to proceed further, may order— (a) preliminary inquiry against any public servant by its Inquiry Wing or any agency to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter; or (b) investigation by any agency or authority empowered under any law to investigate, where there exists a prima facie case.

✓ Section 25 of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014, grants the Lokayukta power of superintendence and direction over investigating agencies, including the State Vigilance and Crime Branch.

✓ Section 28 of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014, authorizes the Lokayukta to utilize the services of any officer or organization or investigation agency of the Government for conducting preliminary inquiries or investigations.

These provisions establish the Lokayukta’s authority to initiate inquiries and investigations into corruption allegations against public servants, using its own inquiry wing or other agencies.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Odisha Lokayukta):

• ✓ The Lokayukta argued that the High Court’s order violated principles of natural justice by not allowing the Lokayukta a hearing before setting aside its order.

• ✓ The Lokayukta contended that Section 20(1) of the Act provides an option to conduct a preliminary inquiry either through its own inquiry wing or any other agency.

• ✓ The Lokayukta submitted that the term “any agency” under Section 20(1) includes the State Vigilance and Crime Branch, as per Section 25 of the Act.

• ✓ The Lokayukta argued that Section 28 allows it to use the services of any government agency for preliminary inquiries.

• ✓ The Lokayukta clarified that a preliminary inquiry is only to ascertain if a prima facie case exists, and a full hearing is provided to the public servant before any further action.

• ✓ The Lokayukta emphasized that no adverse action was taken against the respondent by initiating a preliminary inquiry.

Respondents’ Arguments (Dr. Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi and Others):

• ✓ The respondents argued that the Lokayukta’s order to the Directorate of Vigilance was biased since the complaint was made by an officer of the same Directorate.

• ✓ The respondents contended that the Lokayukta should have used its own inquiry wing to maintain impartiality.

• ✓ The respondents submitted that since the Advocate General of the State appeared, the Lokayukta was given an opportunity of hearing.

• ✓ The respondents argued that there was no manifest error in the High Court’s order to warrant interference.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of the Lokayukta dated 11th December, 2020, directing the Directorate of Vigilance to conduct a preliminary inquiry.
2. Whether the Lokayukta has the power to direct the Directorate of Vigilance to conduct a preliminary inquiry under Section 20(1) of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014.
3. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by the High Court by not affording an opportunity of hearing to the Lokayukta.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

On Principles of Natural Justice and Bias:

• A.K. Kraipak and others vs. Union of India and others [1969 (2) SCC 262] – The Supreme Court of India held that a person cannot be a judge in his own case and that there must be reasonable ground for believing that there was likelihood of bias.

• Ashok Kumar Yadav and others vs. State of Haryana and others [1985 (4) SCC 417] – The Supreme Court of India held that it is a fundamental principle that no man can be a judge in his own cause and that if there is a reasonable likelihood of bias, the justice should be incapacitated from sitting.

• Mukesh Singh vs. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) [2020 (10) SCC 120] – The Supreme Court of India held that the investigation is not vitiated merely because the informant is the investigator.

On Interpretation of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014:

• Section 2(d) of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014 – Definition of “complaint”.

• Section 2(l) of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014 – Definition of “preliminary inquiry”.

• Section 2(n) of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014 – Definition of “public servant”.

• Section 20(1) of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014 – Power of the Lokayukta to order preliminary inquiry or investigation.

• Section 25 of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014 – Power of superintendence of the Lokayukta over investigating agencies.

• Section 28 of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014 – Power of the Lokayukta to utilize services of Government agencies.

How Authorities Were Considered

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the Lokayukta’s order.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ A.K. Kraipak and others vs. Union of India and others [1969 (2) SCC 262]*: The Court cited this case to emphasize that justice must not only be done but also appear to be done, highlighting the importance of impartiality.

✓ Ashok Kumar Yadav and others vs. State of Haryana and others [1985 (4) SCC 417]*: The Court relied on this case to reinforce the principle that there should be no reasonable likelihood of bias in decision-making.

✓ Mukesh Singh vs. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) [2020 (10) SCC 120]*: The Court used this case to clarify that an investigation is not automatically vitiated if the informant and the investigator are the same, thereby rejecting the bias argument raised by the respondents.

✓ The Court interpreted Section 20(1) of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014, to mean that the Lokayukta has the discretion to order a preliminary inquiry through its own wing or any other agency, including the Directorate of Vigilance.

✓ The Court interpreted Section 25 of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014, to mean that the State Vigilance and Crime Branch falls under the ambit of “any agency” that the Lokayukta can direct for preliminary inquiry.

✓ The Court interpreted Section 28 of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014, to mean that the Lokayukta can utilize the services of any government agency for conducting preliminary inquiries or investigations.

The Court held that the High Court had overlooked the provisions of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014, and had violated the principles of natural justice by not providing a hearing to the Lokayukta.

The Court also addressed the issue of bias, stating that the Deputy Superintendent of Police was merely an informant and that the preliminary inquiry was conducted by a senior officer of the Directorate of Vigilance, thus negating any claims of bias.

The Court stated that the Lokayukta was a person aggrieved by the High Court’s order and had the locus standi to file an appeal.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the following considerations:

• ✓ Statutory Interpretation: The Court emphasized the plain reading of Section 20(1) of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014, which allows the Lokayukta to use its own inquiry wing or any other agency for preliminary inquiries.

• ✓ Principles of Natural Justice: The Court was firm that the High Court had violated the principles of natural justice by not allowing the Lokayukta a hearing before setting aside its order.

• ✓ Absence of Bias: The Court found no merit in the claim of bias, as the complaint was made by an informant, and the preliminary inquiry was conducted by a different officer, not connected with the author of the complaint.

• ✓ Locus Standi: The Court held that the Lokayukta was a person aggrieved by the High Court’s order and had the right to appeal.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons

Fact:Law

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal interpretations and principles, with less emphasis on the factual aspects of the case.

Logical Reasoning

Issue 1: Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the Lokayukta’s order?

Issue 2: Whether the Lokayukta has the power to direct the Directorate of Vigilance for preliminary inquiry?

Issue 3: Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by the High Court?

The Court’s reasoning followed a clear path, focusing on the statutory provisions and the principles of natural justice.

The Supreme Court considered the arguments made by the respondents regarding bias and locus standi but rejected them, holding that the Lokayukta’s actions were within its powers and that the High Court had erred in its judgment.

The Court also addressed the objection raised by the respondents regarding the locus standi of the appellant. The Court held that the appellant was indeed a person aggrieved and had the right to question the High Court’s order.

The Supreme Court quoted from the judgment:

“The action of the Division Bench of the High Court indeed was in violation of the principles of natural justice.”

“Even on merits, the Division Bench has completely overlooked Section 20(1) of the Act, 2014 that empowers the Lokayukta… to conduct either a preliminary inquiry against a public servant by its inquiry wing or any other agency.”

“In the given facts and circumstances, the finding returned by the Division Bench of the High Court under the judgment impugned, in our view, is not legally sustainable.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench was unanimous in its decision.

Key Takeaways

✓ The Odisha Lokayukta has the power to direct the Directorate of Vigilance to conduct preliminary inquiries into corruption allegations against public servants.

✓ High Courts must adhere to the principles of natural justice and provide a hearing to all parties before passing orders thatimpact their interests.

✓ The Lokayukta can utilize the services of any government agency for conducting preliminary inquiries or investigations.

✓ The Supreme Court emphasized that the Lokayukta’s powers under the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014, should not be curtailed without a clear legal basis.

Future Impact

This judgment reinforces the powers of the Lokayukta in Odisha and provides clarity on its ability to use various government agencies for preliminary inquiries. This will likely lead to:

• ✓ Increased Efficiency: The Lokayukta can now efficiently use the resources of the Directorate of Vigilance and other agencies for preliminary inquiries, potentially speeding up the process of investigating corruption allegations.

• ✓ Stronger Anti-Corruption Measures: The judgment strengthens the Lokayukta’s role as an anti-corruption watchdog, giving it more teeth to investigate and prosecute cases of corruption.

• ✓ Consistency in Judicial Approach: The Supreme Court’s ruling provides guidance to High Courts on the interpretation of the Lokayukta Act and the principles of natural justice.

• ✓ Precedent for Other States: This case may serve as a precedent for other states with similar Lokayukta Acts, clarifying the powers of these institutions.