Court dismisses delayed challenge to G.O.Ms.No.84 of 2020, affirming State Government's rule-making power under Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Act, 2018
In a significant judgment dated September 2, 2026, the Madras High Court (Division Bench) upheld the validity of Government Order G.O.Ms.No.84 issued by the Tamil Nadu Government on July 21, 2020, which expanded the eligibility criteria for appointment as the Secretary to the Lokayukta. The petitioner, V. Jeevakumar, a practicing advocate, had challenged the order contending that the inclusion of serving or retired District Judges of the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service in the eligibility pool was ultra vires Section 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Act, 2018.
The Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Act, 2018, enacted pursuant to the mandate under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, provides for the appointment of a Secretary to the Lokayukta who must be an officer "not below the rank of Deputy Secretary to Government". The petitioner argued that this wording restricts eligibility exclusively to administrative officers from the Secretariat, and that allowing District Judges to be appointed transgressed the statutory limits and exceeded the delegated rule-making powers of the State Government under Section 44 of the Act.
The State Government, represented by the Additional Advocate General, defended the order by highlighting that the statutory language "not below the rank of Deputy Secretary" sets only a minimum threshold, not an upper limit. District Judges indisputably hold a rank and status equivalent to or higher than that of a Deputy Secretary to Government. Given the quasi-judicial functions of the Lokayukta Secretary, including court litigation, liaison with law enforcement, and judicial registry management, a judicial background was found to be beneficial and consonant with the objectives of the Act.
The Court also took note of a preliminary objection raised by the respondents concerning the petitioner's inordinate delay of six years in filing the writ petition without any plausible explanation. Citing settled principles of administrative law, the Court held that such unexplained delay disentitles the petitioner from discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
After examining the statutory provisions, the Court affirmed that the impugned Government Order was within the competence of the State Government to frame rules regarding service conditions and appointment modalities under Section 44(2)(d) of the Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Act, 2018. The Court held that the order was consistent with the parent Act and did not violate Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were imposed. The judgment reaffirms the State Government's authority to broaden the eligibility for Lokayukta appointments to include judicial officers, thereby strengthening the institutional framework of the anti-corruption body.
Bottom Line:
Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Act, 2018 - Appointment of Secretary under G.O.Ms.No.84 of 2020 - Inclusion of District Judges in eligibility pool - Held, consistent with statutory provisions and within competence of State Government.
Statutory provision(s):
Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Act, 2018 - Sections 9(1), 9(4), 44(1), 44(2)(d); Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (Central Act 1 of 2014) - Section 63; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19, 226
V. Jeevakumar v. Secretary to the Government, (Madras)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2972609
