Goa Lokayukta Non-Functional For Six Months, Justice Delayed In 20 Anti-Corruption Cases
Despite the Directorate of Vigilance writing to the Chief Secretary in February to initiate the shortlisting of retired high court judges for the position, sources indicate that no concrete progress has been made.
"The Vigilance Department has not got any communication from the government on the appointment of new Lokayukta. The government has to shortlist the candidates, based on which concurrence of the High Court is sought," informed sources close to the development.
The appointment process requires a three-member committee, comprising the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, to finalize the selection once a suitable candidate is identified. Leader of Opposition Yuri Alemao confirmed the stagnation, stating, "There is no development on it so far. Will be raising the matter with the Chief Minister shortly."
The @BJP4Goa, which gave a 'mantra' of zero tolerance to corruption, appears to be deliberately delaying the appointment of a new Lokayukta following the end of Justice (Retd) Ambadas Joshi's tenure in December 2024. Notably, Justice Joshi's appointment came after a six-month gap… pic.twitter.com/vKqXJfisGy — Yuri Alemao (@Yurialemao9) June 27, 2025
While the Lokayukta office continues to accept corruption-related complaints from citizens, it is currently unable to proceed with investigations or actions due to the absence of an appointed Lokayukta.
This is not the first instance of a prolonged delay in appointing the head of the anti-corruption body in Goa. Justice Joshi himself was appointed in April 2021, succeeding Justice (retd) P.K. Misra, whose term ended in September 2020, leaving 75 cases pending at that time. Before Joshi's appointment, Justice (retd) U.V. Bakre had initially been shortlisted but withdrew his consent in March 2021 citing personal reasons.
Most of the currently pending cases reportedly involve corruption in illegal constructions and the issuance of various permissions.
Before the end of his term, Justice Misra had highlighted the perceived weaknesses in Goa's Lokayukta Act, noting that it lacked the robust powers enjoyed by its counterparts in states like Karnataka and Kerala. Goa's first Lokayukta, Justice (retd) Sudershan Reddy, had also resigned within seven months of his 2013 appointment, citing personal reasons, leading to a nearly three-year vacancy before Justice Misra's appointment in April 2016.
To facilitate appointments, the State government had amended the Lokayukta Act in 2021, allowing for the appointment of retired high court judges after facing difficulties in securing retired Supreme Court judges or High Court chief justices for the post.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
37 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Explained: Law on phone-tapping, and two HC rulings
Can the government tap the phones of suspects to gather evidence before a crime is committed? Last week, in two separate cases, the Madras and the Delhi High Courts gave varying answers to this question. What is the law on phone tapping in India, and how have High Courts interpreted it? The law on tapping The government's powers to intercept communication is laid down in — and circumscribed by — three pieces of legislation. The 140-year-old Telegraph Act was originally meant for intercepting telegrams, but over the years it has been expanded to include telephonic conversations. Section 5(2) of the Act states that both state and central governments can, 'on the occurrence of any public emergency, or in the interest of the public safety', authorise interception. Given that the right to free speech and the right to privacy are fundamental rights, any encroachment on these rights through surveillance is only permissible on narrow constitutional grounds. These grounds — the interest of the sovereignty, and integrity of India; the security of the state; friendly relations with foreign states; public order; or preventing incitement to the commission of an offence — are enumerated as 'reasonable restrictions' under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Section 5(2) of the Act also mentions these grounds for authorising interception. For actions to be deemed a threat to 'public emergency, or in the interest of the public safety' and allow for interception, they have to necessarily fall into one of the reasonable restrictions. The High Court rulings Both the Madras and Delhi High Court cases involved 'preventing incitement to the commission of an offence', which is one of the valid grounds in law for authorising phone tapping. Both courts separately examined the nature of economic offences to determine if they could be deemed as 'public emergency' or 'public safety.' While the Delhi High Court upheld the interception order, the Madras High Court quashed it. DELHI HC: On June 26, the Delhi High Court rejected the plea of an accused who challenged a trial court's order accepting evidence gathered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) through phone-tapping. The case related to the accused allegedly seeking to secure a sub-contract for the redevelopment of the ITPO complex into an Integrated Exhibition-Cum-Convention Centre through corrupt means. In 2017, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had authorised interception of his phone on the suspicion that he was attempting to bribe a public official. Justice Amit Mahajan stated in his order that given the contract was for Rs 2,149.93 crore, 'the economic scale of the offence, in the opinion of this Court, satisfies the threshold of public safety'. 'The threat posed by corruption cannot be understated. Corruption has a pervasive impact on a nation's economy and the same can impact anything from infrastructural development to resource allocation. Corruption by a public servant has far-reaching consequences as it serves to not only erode public trust and cast aspersions on the integrity of public institutions, but also renders the public at large susceptible and vulnerable by threatening the economic safety of the country,' the High Court said. Madras HC: The Madras High Court on July 2 quashed an interception order issued by the MHA in 2011 for intercepting the phone of an accused in a bribery case. The accused was allegedly attempting to pay a bribe of Rs 50 lakh to a senior Income Tax officer to help the accused hide undisclosed taxable income. Justice Anand Venkatesh in his order stated that a 'public emergency' must be construed narrowly. In the petitioner's case, the MHA's objective to deal with tax evasion would not qualify as a 'public emergency' under Section 5(2) of the Act, the court said. The court also flagged in its order a press note that was released by the Press Information Bureau in April 2011, four months before the MHA order, saying that the law does not allow the monitoring of conversations through phone-tapping 'to merely detect tax evasion'. Additionally, the court said that the phone-tap was unlawful since it did not comply with the procedural standards set by the Supreme Court in a 1997 ruling. Once a phone-tap order is declared unlawful, any information gathered through the tap cannot be treated as evidence in a court of law. Procedural norms In its landmark 1997 ruling in People's Union Of Civil Liberties vs Union Of India, the Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act. While it upheld the law, the court laid down procedural safeguards for its application. The SC said that an order for phone tapping can be issued only by the home secretary of the state and central governments, and that this power cannot be delegated to officers below the rank of joint secretary. The authorising authority must also consider whether the information could 'reasonably be acquired by other means'. Within two months of ordering a phone tap, a committee comprising the cabinet secretary, the law secretary and the telecom secretary shall review the order. At the state level, the committee shall comprise the chief secretary, law secretary and another member other than the home secretary. The scrutiny by the board has also been included under Rule 419-A (17) of the Telegraph Rules.
Mint
6 hours ago
- Mint
Saif Ali Khan faces major legal setback as court rules his ₹15,000 crore Bhopal estate as enemy property
In a major legal setback for Bollywood actor Saif Ali Khan, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that his ancestral property in Bhopal cannot be inherited by him or his family. The court confirmed that the estate, estimated to be worth around ₹ 15,000 crore, falls under the category of "enemy property" as per Indian law. Saif Ali Khan, along with his mother Sharmila Tagore and sisters Soha and Saba Ali Khan, had challenged the government's move to label the royal estate as enemy property under the Enemy Property Act. However, the court rejected their plea and upheld the government's position. The case dates back to 2014, when the Custodian of Enemy Property officially classified the assets of the Bhopal royal family as enemy property. This was based on the fact that Saif's great-grandmother, Abida Sultan — daughter of Nawab Hamidullah Khan — moved to Pakistan after India's Partition in 1947 and gave up her Indian citizenship. According to the Enemy Property Act, which was passed in 1958 and later strengthened, the government is allowed to take over property owned by people who moved to countries considered enemies of India, such as Pakistan. Although a trial court in 2000 had recognised Saif and his family as rightful heirs, the decision was challenged by other family members. They argued that the inheritance should be based on Muslim Personal Law, which considers the actions of Abida Sultan ineligible for inheritance due to her migration. Saif Ali Khan had previously received a temporary stay order on the property in 2015. But in December 2024, the High Court dismissed his petition and lifted the stay. Although Saif and his family were given 30 days to appeal, no appeal was made. This has allowed the government to move forward with plans to take over the estate.
Time of India
9 hours ago
- Time of India
Dhankhar rakes up cash at Justice Varma's home, post-retirement jobs to judges and CJI on panel to choose CBI Director
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar raised several questions on Monday about the functioning of the higher judiciary in recent times, raking up the issue of cash found at the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma , the practice of having Chief Justice of India on the panel to choose the CBI Director and the post-retirement jobs given to judges. Addressing students of National University of Advanced Legal Studies at Kochi, Dhankhar the country had seen 'turbulent times in the judiciary' in recent times but a big change has taken place since the present chief justice of India and his predecessor took office, ensuring the start of a 'new era of accountability and transparency'. He said the previous two years were 'very disturbing and challenging'. Referring to the recovery of a huge cache of cash found at the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma, the Vice President said like the Julius Caesar incident of Ides of March, the Indian judiciary had its own experience on the night of March 14-15. '…. A terrible time! Cash in large amounts was found at the official residence of a judge of the High Court. Now, if that cash was found, the system should have moved immediately and the first process would have been to deal with it as a criminal act, find out those who are culpable and bring them to justice. But so far, there has been no FIR,' Dhankhar said. He underlined that the government is 'handicapped' in the matter as an FIR cannot be registered in view of a judgment of the Supreme Court in early 1990s. While the fire incident happened on March 15, the recovery of cash was reported only on March 21, he added. Live Events 'The world looks at us as a mature democracy where there has to be rule of law, equality before law, which means every crime must be investigated. If the money is so huge in volume, we have to find out: is it tainted money? What is the source of this money? How was it stacked in the official residence of a judge? Who did it belong to?' Dhankhar said. He insisted that since several penal provisions have been violated, the FIR should be registered, and the authorities should go to the root of the matter. 'Our judiciary -in which people's faith is unshakable- its very foundations have been shaken. The citadel is tottering because of this incident,' he said. Parliament is likely to move an impeachment motion against Justice Varma in the forthcoming monsoon session and both the government and the Opposition are on board on the matter. The Vice President also raised eyebrows over the rule of having the Chief Justice of India on the panel that chooses the CBI Director. 'I am aghast that a functionary of the executive like the CBI director is appointed with the participation of the Chief Justice of India. Why? Just think... The CBI Director is not the senior most in the hierarchy. He has above him several layers like CVC, Cabinet Secretary, all secretaries. After all, he is heading a department. Is this happening elsewhere in the world? Can it happen under our constitutional scheme? Why should an appointment of the executive be made by anyone else other than the executive?' he said. The Vice President also emphasized that judges should not be given post-retirement jobs. 'Certain constitutional authorities are not permitted to hold an assignment after their office. This was not specified for judges, because judges were expected to be totally away from it. Now we have post-retirement posts for judges. Further, not all can be accommodated- only some can be accommodated. So, when you can't accommodate all but you accommodate some, there is pick-and-choose. When there is pick-and-choose, there is patronage. It is seriously impairing our judiciary,' Dhankhar said.
