<p>The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Karnataka government on a plea challenging of appointment of retired judge, Justice Bhimanagouda S Patil as Upa-Lokayukta, even though the Chief Justice of the HC did not concur with the decision.</p>.<p>A bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian sought a response from the state government and Justice Patil within four weeks on a petition filed by NGO Samaj Parivarthana Samudaya through its founder president S R Hiremath.</p>.<p>The petitioner, led by advocates Prashant Bhushan and Amit Pai, challenged the validity of the High Court's order of February 17, rejecting its plea.</p>.<p>The petitioner sought a direction in the nature of quo warranto and quashing of government order of November 20, 2019, to appoint Justice Patil as Upa-Lokayukta</p>.<p>The plea raised questions as to what would constitute “meaningful and effective consultation” under Section 3(2)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. Whether even if the Chief Justice of the High Court disagreed on the chosen name, the government can still proceed with the appointment. </p>.<p>It claimed there was no effective consultation by the Chief Minister, with the Chief Justice, the Chairperson of the Karnataka Legislative Council, the Leader of Opposition in the Karnataka Legislative Council, and the Leader of Opposition in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly in the appointment.</p>.<p>On July 24, 2018, the Chief Minister elicited the suggestion of a suitable name from the Chief Justice of the High Court, who recommended the name of Justice (retd) A N Venugopala Gowda to the post.</p>.<p>However, more than nine months after the recommendation made by the then Chief Justice, the then Chief Minister on June 20, 2019, again sought the recommendation of the newly appointed Chief Justice. </p>.<p>On June 22, 2019, the Chief Justice reiterated the recommendation made by his predecessor after perusal of the relevant materials. </p>.<p>However, on November 12, 2019, the Chief Minister informed the Chief Justice that upon consulting the other four authorities, it was recommended that Justice Patil would be appointed.</p>.<p>Two days later, the Chief Justice informed the Chief Minister that there was no material placed before him, warranting change of the recommendation earlier made by him and his predecessor. </p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Karnataka government on a plea challenging of appointment of retired judge, Justice Bhimanagouda S Patil as Upa-Lokayukta, even though the Chief Justice of the HC did not concur with the decision.</p>.<p>A bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian sought a response from the state government and Justice Patil within four weeks on a petition filed by NGO Samaj Parivarthana Samudaya through its founder president S R Hiremath.</p>.<p>The petitioner, led by advocates Prashant Bhushan and Amit Pai, challenged the validity of the High Court's order of February 17, rejecting its plea.</p>.<p>The petitioner sought a direction in the nature of quo warranto and quashing of government order of November 20, 2019, to appoint Justice Patil as Upa-Lokayukta</p>.<p>The plea raised questions as to what would constitute “meaningful and effective consultation” under Section 3(2)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. Whether even if the Chief Justice of the High Court disagreed on the chosen name, the government can still proceed with the appointment. </p>.<p>It claimed there was no effective consultation by the Chief Minister, with the Chief Justice, the Chairperson of the Karnataka Legislative Council, the Leader of Opposition in the Karnataka Legislative Council, and the Leader of Opposition in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly in the appointment.</p>.<p>On July 24, 2018, the Chief Minister elicited the suggestion of a suitable name from the Chief Justice of the High Court, who recommended the name of Justice (retd) A N Venugopala Gowda to the post.</p>.<p>However, more than nine months after the recommendation made by the then Chief Justice, the then Chief Minister on June 20, 2019, again sought the recommendation of the newly appointed Chief Justice. </p>.<p>On June 22, 2019, the Chief Justice reiterated the recommendation made by his predecessor after perusal of the relevant materials. </p>.<p>However, on November 12, 2019, the Chief Minister informed the Chief Justice that upon consulting the other four authorities, it was recommended that Justice Patil would be appointed.</p>.<p>Two days later, the Chief Justice informed the Chief Minister that there was no material placed before him, warranting change of the recommendation earlier made by him and his predecessor. </p>
