The Gauhati High Court at Kohima has issued an interim stay on the operation of two amendments to the Nagaland Lokayukta Act, 2017, that modified the selection process and eligibility criteria for the appointment of a Lokayukta. The order, passed on Wednesday (January 22) by a division bench comprising Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia and Justice Budi Habung, followed petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the amendments.
The amendments in question—introduced under the Nagaland Lokayukta (1st Amendment) Act, 2019, and the Nagaland Lokayukta (2nd Amendment) Act, 2022—had drawn criticism for allegedly deviating from the statutory framework laid down in the Central Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013.
The petitioners argued that the amendments conflicted with the provisions of the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013. Specifically, Section 3(2)(ii) of the Nagaland Lokayukta Act, as amended in 2019, allows the Search Committee to include the Chief Secretary or Additional Chief Secretary and the Advocate General of Nagaland for selecting a Lokayukta. This provision was said to contravene Section 4(3) of the Central Act, which mandates a Search Committee of at least seven eminent individuals, with 50% representation from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, minorities, and women.
The petition also raised concerns about the broadened eligibility criteria introduced through the 2022 amendment. Under the revised Section 3(4) of the Nagaland Lokayukta Act, eligibility was expanded to include individuals with vast knowledge and 20 years of expertise in fields such as law, anti-corruption policy, public administration, and finance, alongside former judges of the Supreme Court or High Courts. This broader scope was claimed to undermine the uniform standards established by the Central Act.
Citing Article 254 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners contended that the state amendments were repugnant to the central legislation. Article 254 establishes that in cases of conflict between state and central laws on matters in the Concurrent List, the central law prevails. The petitioners urged the court to declare the amendments void under this doctrine of repugnancy.
Acknowledging the submissions, the division bench issued notices to the State respondents and granted an interim stay on the operation of the amendments. The matter has been listed for hearing after four weeks. (With inputs from Livelaw)