The Kerala High Court has emphasized that taking needless deterrent actions against complainants under Section 21 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act could discourage individuals from raising grievances against public authorities, thereby undermining the very purpose of the Lok Ayukta mechanism.
The ruling came in response to a petition filed by T.K. Pavithran, who had lodged a complaint against V.K. Divakaran, President of the Indira Gandhi Co-operative Hospital in Kannur, alleging financial misconduct and illegal property accumulation. Following the dismissal of the complaint, an application was filed under Section 21 of the Act seeking permission to prosecute Pavithran for allegedly lodging a false complaint. The Lok Ayukta granted sanction for prosecution, prompting the petitioner to challenge the decision in court.
Read Also:- General Clauses Act: Kerala High Court Clarifies One-Month Expiry Calculation Irrespective of Number of Days
The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu, observed:
"The Act of 1999 is designed to conduct inquiries into actions, omissions, or commissions by authorities to promote transparency and accountability. The Lok Ayukta plays a crucial role in addressing public grievances, and unnecessary deterrent measures against complainants could make this remedy ineffective."
Legal Provisions and Judicial Observations
Under Section 21(1) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, lodging a false complaint with malicious intent is punishable by imprisonment for three to six months along with a fine. Section 21(3) stipulates that no court shall take cognizance of such an offence unless a complaint is filed by the affected party and sanctioned by the Lok Ayukta.
Read Also:- Kerala High Court Rules in Favor of Teachers: Mandatory Preliminary Inquiry Before Criminal Cases
The Court noted that the statute lacks specific guidelines on granting sanctions under Section 21, but this does not imply that every dismissed complaint warrants prosecution. It stressed that complaints rejected due to lack of evidence should not be equated with those filed with malicious intent.
The Bench stated:
"The terms 'false complaint' and 'malicious intention' in Section 21(1) clarify how the provision should be applied. A complaint dismissed for insufficient evidence is distinct from one that is intentionally false and malicious. While a detailed judgment is not required for granting sanction, the reasons should be evident from the records."
Case-Specific Findings
In Pavithran’s case, the Court found that although he failed to substantiate his allegations, his complaint could not be deemed false or malicious. It also noted that the Lok Ayukta's sanction order lacked proper reasoning, making it legally unsustainable.
Read Also:- Kerala High Court Rules Against Lawyers Recording Court Proceedings, Contemplates Contempt Action
After considering the matter, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the Lok Ayukta’s decision to permit prosecution under Section 21.
Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate Kaleeswaram Raj
Counsel for Respondents: Advocates J Harikumar, M Sasindran, Joggy Mathunni, Standing Counsel Renu DP,
Case Title: T K Pavithran v Kerala Lok Ayukta
Case No: WP(C) NO.36370 OF 2008
