Jude Rangku T. Sangma & Anr vs State Of Meghalaya & Ors

On 16th February, 2021, this Court passed the following order:-

"Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the petition, it is evident that as of date, a body to be called the "Lokayukta", as specifically stated under section 3 of the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act, 2014, is not in existence. Simply by appointing a retired Judge to be the Chairperson of the Meghalaya Lokayukta is not enough to be considered as a fully constituted and functional "body" in view of the plain language of section 3 of the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act, 2014, which is setout hereinbelow:-

Establishment of Lokayukta

3.(1) As soon as after the commencement of this Act, there shall be established, by notification in the Official Gazette, a body to be called the "Lokayukta".

(2) The Lokayukta shall consist of-

(a) a Chairperson, who is or has been a Chief Justice of the High Court or a Judge of the High Court or an eminent person who fulfils the eligibility specified in clause (b) of sub-section (3); and

(b) such number of members, not exceeding four out of whom fifty percent shall be Judicial Members. ....."

A plain reading of the aforesaid provision of law reveals that in order to constitute a "body" to be called the "Lokayukta", it has to comprise of a Chairperson and such other number of members not exceeding four out of whom fifty percent shall be Judicial Members. As of today, there is only a Chairperson, who happens to be a retired Judge of Gauhati High Court and no other member as clearly required and mandated in terms of clause (b) under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act, 2014.

We, therefore, direct the State respondents to intimate this Court by means of an affidavit as to when a fully functional "body" to be called the "Lokayukta" shall be constituted. Such affidavit shall be filed on or before the next date.

List this matter along with WP (C) No.395 of 2020".

In terms of the above order, an affidavit appears to have been prepared and signed on 5th day of April, 2021, by the deponent. However, the affirmation date has not been put forth by Meralika Lyngwa, Notary, East Khasi Hills District, Government of Meghalaya. The concerned Notary shall be more careful in future. The second Judge's copy does not even have an affirmation date nor bears any signature of the deponent or any notarial attestation, which is simply incredulous. How the Registry permitted this affidavit to enter the records of this Court is unknown to this Bench.

Be that as it may, this affidavit reveals that consequent to our earlier order dated 16th February, 2021, the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly has passed the Meghalaya Lokayukta (Amendment) Act, 2021, suitably amending certain provisions of the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act, 2014, including sections 3, 20 and 36 and also substitution of section 5 thereof. A copy of the Meghalaya Lokayukta (Amendment) Act, 2021, rectifying all amendments and substitution has been annexed to the affidavit filed by the State of Meghalaya.

Considering the contents of the amendments and substitution that have now been brought into force, it cannot be held that the Meghalaya Lokayukta is non-functional at this stage. As such, the writ petition does not warrant any further intervention by this Court and stands disposed of accordingly.

In view of the above order, no directions are required to be issued in respect of Caveat Petition No.85 of 2020, which stands disposed of accordingly.