The Supreme Court recently declined to rule on whether the Lokayukta can challenge a decision by an Administrative Tribunal to revoke a mandatory retirement penalty for corruption. Discover what this means for anti-corruption proceedings in India.

Can Lokayukta Legally Challenge Administrative Tribunal Decisions?

The legal status of whether the Lokayukta has the authority to contest decisions made by an Administrative Tribunal remains uncertain, following a recent development in the Supreme Court of India.

On May 26, 2025, the apex court left the question open while dismissing a petition filed by the Lokayukta. The case revolved around the tribunal’s decision to revoke a mandatory retirement punishment issued for alleged corruption.

Background of the Case: Karnataka Lokayukta’s Appeal

The Lokayukta had appealed against a ruling by the Karnataka High Court, which upheld the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal’s decision to overturn the penalty. The original punishment—mandatory retirement—had been imposed following charges of corruption against the respondent.

A bench consisting of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta heard the matter. The justices questioned whether the Lokayukta, as a quasi-judicial body, had the legal standing to appeal a decision that the actual disciplinary authority did not challenge.

Supreme Court’s Observations on Jurisdiction

Justice Datta noted that although the Lokayukta was made a party to the proceedings, it lacked the authority to independently dispute the tribunal’s exoneration of the accused. The bench posed critical questions:
“Has the disciplinary authority arrived? Have you been wronged? Who are you?”

These questions highlighted doubts about the Lokayukta’s role in such disciplinary proceedings—especially in situations where the accused is acquitted in a criminal court under the Prevention of Corruption Act due to lack of evidence for demand and acceptance of bribes.

Outcome: Petition Dismissed, Legal Uncertainty Remains

After 277 days of deliberation, the petition was dismissed. However, the Supreme Court did not deliver a definitive ruling on the Lokayukta’s legal standing in such cases. This leaves a critical gap in understanding the scope of the Lokayukta’s powers in contesting administrative decisions on corruption-related penalties.

Conclusion: A Grey Area in Anti-Corruption Jurisprudence

While the Supreme Court’s dismissal closes the door on this specific appeal, the broader legal question remains unresolved. Can the Lokayukta challenge tribunal decisions when the disciplinary authority remains passive? Legal clarity on this issue is vital for strengthening institutional mechanisms against corruption in India.