District Judges Can Be Appointed As Lokayukta Secretary: Madras High Court Upholds State's Decision

The Madras High Court has upheld the validity of the Tamil Nadu government order allowing the appointment of serving or retired District Judges as Secretary to the Tamil Nadu Lokayukta.

The Court ruled that Section 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Act, 2018 sets a minimum rank requirement ("not below the rank of Deputy Secretary") rather than an exclusive bar. 

Referring to Section 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Act, 2018, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan held, "It does not create an absolute bar against appointing judicial officers who satisfy or exceed that requisite rank. District Judges in the State Judicial Service indisputably hold a cadre and status well above or equivalent to a Deputy Secretary to the Government. Delegated rule-making under Section 44(2)(d) of the Act explicitly empowers the State Government to frame rules regarding the conditions of service and appointment modes. Thus, allowing District Judges to serve as Secretary on deputation or contract is entirely consistent with the scheme of the parent Act."

Advocate M Velmurugan appeared for the Petitioner, while Additional Advocate General S.Arjun Suresh appeared for the State

Brief Facts 

A public interest litigation was filed seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records and quash the Government Order ("GO") and the implementation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Act, 2018 (Act 33 of 2018) and the statutory rules and regulations framed thereunder.

The State issued the impugned GO amending Schedule-II of Rule 18 of the Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Rules, 2018. The amendment substituted the method of recruitment for the post of “Secretary” and “Registrar” of the Lokayukta.

Specifically, for the post of “Secretary”, it enabled appointment either by transfer from Secretariat officers holding the rank of Additional Secretary, Joint Secretary, or Deputy Secretary, or by deputation/ re-employment/contract of a serving or retired District Judge from the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service.

The Parliament enacted the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, wherein Section 63 mandated every State Legislature to establish an independent anti-corruption body within one year.

Pursuant to this mandate, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly enacted the Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Act, 2018, which came into force in 2018.

Simultaneously, the State Government framed the Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Rules, 2018 under Section 44 of the Act. 

Contentions of the Parties

The Petitioner submitted that the impugned GO was ultra vires Section 9(1) of the parent Act. It was submitted that Section 9(1) of the Act prescribes that the Secretary shall be an officer “not below the rank of Deputy Secretary to Government”, which, according to the petitioner, restricts the eligibility exclusively to executive administrative officers from the Secretariat services.

He argued that by expanding the eligibility pool to include serving and retired District Judges, the executive exceeded its delegated rule-making power under Section 44 of the Act.

Per Contra, the State contended that Section 9(1) of the Act prescribes only the minimum threshold of rank and status, viz., “not below the rank of Deputy Secretary”. District Judges indisputably hold a rank, status and judicial pedigree superior to the rank of the Deputy Secretary to the Government. 

It was submitted that given the quasi-judicial nature of the duties of Lokayukta, including conducting court litigation, briefing law officers, interacting with police investigative wings, and managing judicial registries, judicial background is highly beneficial.

Observations and Findings of the Court

The Court noted that it is a well-settled principle of administrative law that even in Public Interest Litigation, an unexplained and prolonged delay in challenging delegated legislation or statutory appointments disentitles a petitioner from discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

"In conclusion, the impugned G.O.Ms.No.84 of 2020 is valid and within the statutory competence of the State Government. The petitioner has failed to establish any violation of statutory provisions or constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India", the Court held.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Cause Title: V Jeevakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. [W.P.No.24726 of 2026]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocate M Velmurugan

Respondents: Additional Advocate General S.Arjun Suresh and Addl Government Pleader L.Gokulraj

Click here to read/download the Order