Kochi, March 31 (NationPress) On Tuesday, the Kerala High Court affirmed the constitutional legitimacy of the amendments made in 2024 to the Kerala Lokayukta Act, providing considerable relief to the state administration while also instituting a crucial safeguard regarding decision-making timeframes.

A Division Bench, which included Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice V.M. Syam Kumar, rejected the petitions filed by senior Congress MLA Ramesh Chennithala, who argued that the amendments were unconstitutional and infringed upon the principle of separation of powers.

In its ruling, the court stated that if the designated authority fails to respond to a Lokayukta report within three months (90 days), it shall be considered accepted.

The Bench specified that this interpretation should be incorporated into Section 12 of the Act, which pertains to the submission of reports and subsequent actions.

The amendments, introduced by the second Pinarayi Vijayan government, sparked extensive discussions as they limited the powers of the Lokayukta, particularly in its ability to recommend the dismissal of public officials found guilty of corruption.

Critics claimed that these alterations diminished the Lokayukta’s role to that of merely a recommendatory body.

Chennithala’s petition highlighted significant modifications in Sections 2, 3, and 14 of the Act. Notably, the authority to decide on recommendations involving the Chief Minister was shifted from the Governor to the State Legislative Assembly, while the Speaker was designated as the competent authority in matters concerning MLAs.

The petitioner asserted that this arrangement effectively transferred appellate powers to the ruling administration.

Moreover, the amendment to Section 3 weakened the eligibility criteria for appointing the Lokayukta by allowing former High Court judges instead of requiring a former Chief Justice.

Changes in Section 14 also permitted competent authorities to overlook Lokayukta recommendations without obligatory action.

Nonetheless, the court dismissed claims that the amendments undermined judicial powers.

The state government argued that the Lokayukta is not a judicial entity and that investigative bodies should not hold final adjudicative authority.

This ruling arrives in light of previous conflicts, including the resignation of former Minister K.T. Jaleel following a Lokayukta directive in 2021, and the ensuing examination of the Chief Minister’s Distress Relief Fund, events that indicated a shift in the government’s position on the institution.