Rejecting the state government's plea, three months after it gave a split verdict, Justice V M Sahai held that Modi's "questionable conduct" of "stonewalling" the appointment of Justice (retd) RA Mehta.
In a blow to Narendra Modi, the Gujarat High Court today upheld the appointment of Lok Ayukta by the Governor while sharply criticising the Chief Minister for his "pranks" that had sparked a "constitutional mini crisis".
Rejecting the state government's plea, three months after it gave a split verdict, Justice V M Sahai held that Modi's "questionable conduct" of "stonewalling" the appointment of Justice (retd) R A Mehta as Lok Ayukta by Governor Kamla Beniwal threatened the rule of law.
Justice Sahai, who was given the task of hearing the challenge against the appointment of Lok Ayukta following the split verdict of a two-member bench, described Modi's refusal to accept Justice Mehta's appointment as advised by the Gujarat High Court Chief Justice as "spiteful and challenging".
He said the action demonstrated a "false sense of invincibility" on Modi's part.
In strong observations, the judge held that the Chief Minister's effort to metastasise the procedure for appointment of Lok Ayukta by issuing an ordinance were "deprave and truculent" actions.
"The pranks of the Chief Minister who is the head of the Council of Ministers demonstrates deconstruction of our democracy, and the questionable conduct of stonewalling the appointment of justice Mehta as Lok Ayukta threatened the rule of law," he said.
The Gujarat government said it would appeal against the 2 to 1 majority decision in the Supreme Court after seeking legal advice.
Modi had maintained that the Governor acted unconstitutionally in selecting the ombudsman as the state government had not been consulted.
Beniwal had appointed Justice Mehta to the post of Lok Ayukta on August 25 triggering a confrontation with the state government. The post had been lying vacant for eight years prior to that since November 2003.
"I could not persuade myself, that the writ petitions be allowed, and agree with the opinion of Justice Sonia Gokani," said Justice Sahai.
"I am in complete agreement with the view taken by Justice Akil Kureshi that these writ petitions are to be dismissed. I do not find any merit in these writ petitions, accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed," he added.
On October 11, Justice Kureshi had upheld the decision of the Governor while Justice Gokani had quashed warrant of appointment issued by the Governor terming it to be unconstitutional.
Legal experts said Justice Mehta can assume office any time.
Mehta himself remained unfazed over the legal battle and the stands taken by rival political parties over his appointment, saying he is "totally indifferent" to this.
"No, not at all. I have remained totally indifferent in all these things," he said when asked if stands taken by political parties ever bothered him.
Mehta refused to comment on the court verdict, saying, "I have not seen the judgement and will only be able to comment after the final judgement."
Justice Sahai said "extraordinary situations demand extraordinary remedies" in dealing with such an unprecedented case.
"Open resistance of the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister in not accepting the primacy of the opinion of the Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court in the matter of appointment of Lok Ayukta has created a crisis situation," he said.
There was no good reason to reject the name of Justice Mehta once the objections of the Chief Minister had been overruled by the Chief Jusitce, he noted.
Modi had insisted on Justice J R Vora to be appointed as Lok Ayukta but this was not accepted by the Chief Justice on the ground that the judge had been appointed as the Director of the Gujarat State Judicial Academy.
If the Chief Minister's choice had been accepted, iit would have set a "pernicious trend" and would have propitiated the public functionaries who were likely to fall within the scanner of Lok Ayukta and destroyed the integrity of the instituion as envisaged, he said.
"Constitutional provisions are required to be understood and interpreted with an object-oriented approach and not in a narrow and pedantic sense," the judge said.
"A Constitutional mini-crisis" had been sparked by the Chief Minister which compelled the Governor to exercise the discretionary powers under Article 163, to protect democracy and rule of law, Justice Sahai noted.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}