The question raised by Senior Advocate Khaidem Mani regarding the legality of the recent appointment of the non-judicial member of the Manipur Lokayukta is not a mere procedural quibble — it is a matter that demands serious reflection from the legal fraternity, civil society activists, and the media alike. The Lokayukta, conceived as a statutory watchdog against corruption, must function above suspicion. Any ambiguity in its constitution or appointment process weakens the very foundation of public trust it seeks to uphold.
Manipur’s Lokayukta has long been rendered ineffective due to vacancies in key posts, leaving anti-corruption initiatives crippled. For citizens eager to see the state’s accountability mechanisms revived, the appointment of new members should have been a moment of relief. Instead, it has given rise to skepticism, with allegations of legal lapses and procedural violations threatening to overshadow the development.
Senior Advocate Khaidem Mani’s contention is twofold — that the appointment violates Section 6 of the Manipur Lokayukta Act, 2014, and that it also contravenes Article 319 of the Constitution of India. The first issue relates to procedure: under Section 6, members of the Lokayukta, including its Chairperson, are to be appointed on the recommendation of a selection committee comprising the Chief Minister, the Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, the Chief Justice of the High Court, and a nominee chosen by these members. With the Manipur Legislative Assembly under suspended animation, this selection committee, in effect, ceases to exist. Therefore, the legitimacy of any appointment made in the absence of its recommendation is questionable. This argument certainly merits examination by constitutional experts.
However, the second claim — that the appointment violates Article 319 of the Constitution — appears less persuasive when viewed in the light of judicial precedents. Article 319 restricts the future employment of State Public Service Commission (PSC) chairpersons and members under the government. Yet, the critical question is whether the office of the Lokayukta constitutes “employment under the government.”
The Kerala High Court, in a landmark judgment, clarified this distinction. It ruled that the Lokayukta is an independent statutory authority, not subordinate to the state government. The bench observed that the Lokayukta, though remunerated by the government, functions entirely independently and cannot be directed by the state in the discharge of its duties. Therefore, it does not fall under the purview of “employment under the government” as contemplated in Article 319. This interpretation has significant bearing on the current debate, suggesting that a retired chairperson or member of a State Public Service Commission can indeed hold office as Lokayukta or its member without violating constitutional provisions.
Another relevant precedent can be drawn from Gujarat, where the appointment of Justice (Retd.) R.A. Mehta as Lokayukta by the Governor in 2011 triggered a major constitutional dispute. The Gujarat government had argued that the Governor acted without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, thereby violating Article 163(1) of the Constitution. Section 3 of the Gujarat Lokayukta Act empowered the Governor to appoint the Lokayukta by warrant under her hand and seal, but the state government insisted that this power must still operate within the constitutional framework requiring ministerial advice. The division bench of the Gujarat High Court remained split on whether the Governor could act independently, highlighting the delicate balance between gubernatorial discretion and executive accountability.
These judicial deliberations offer a valuable lens through which Manipur’s case must be assessed. The issue here is not simply about who occupies the position of non-judicial member, but whether due process has been adhered to in spirit and letter. If the appointment bypassed the statutory mechanism laid down under Section 6 of the Manipur Lokayukta Act, it risks setting a dangerous precedent — one that could invite legal challenges and undermine public confidence in the institution meant to combat corruption.
Conversely, if the Governor acted within constitutional and statutory bounds — possibly guided by interpretations of exigency under suspended legislative circumstances — then clarity through judicial scrutiny will be essential to settle the matter.
Ultimately, the controversy underscores a larger truth: institutions of accountability derive their authority not only from the law but from the perception of fairness and transparency in their constitution. For a state already struggling with governance and corruption challenges, the Manipur Lokayukta must be above reproach. It is therefore imperative that this issue be examined thoroughly by constitutional experts and, if necessary, judicially reviewed to restore confidence in the integrity of this vital institution.