The appointment of Gujarat Lokayukta created turmoil in Parliament today with Opposition BJP forcing several adjournments of both the Houses demanding recall of Governor Kamala Beniwal for what they alleged was a "dictatorial" act.

'Loktantra me tanashahi nahi chalegi' (dictatorship will not do in a democracy), 'Samvidhan ka ulanghan nahi chalega' (violation of Constitution will not be allowed) were the slogans raised by the BJP members who stormed the well in Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha.

Agitated over the action of the governor, they also chanted slogans like 'Rajyapal ko wapas bulao' (recall the governor) and Lokayukta ka notification wapas lo' (withdraw the notification appointing Lokayukta).

It was trouble from the start in the Upper House which was first adjourned for 15 minutes soon after it assembled for the day and then around noon, till 2.30 PM.

In the Lok Sabha, the Question Hour was smooth and the problem started during Zero Hour.

M Thambidorai, who was in the Chair, adjourned the House till 2.00 pm after ordering laying of the papers listed for the day, allowing the submissions as also taking up a Calling Attention on situation arising out of lack of storage of foodgrains with FCI.

But the continued din, with slogan-shouting BJP members in the well, forcing him to adjourn the House for almost two hours.

Some SP members also stormed the well apparently in support of RJD member Uma Shankar Singh's demand for security in the wake of a recent attack on his house in Bihar in which four persons were killed.

Related story:

BJP memo fires gun at Gujarat CJ as well

GN Bureau

The Bhartiya Janata Party has not only accused Gujarat Governor Kamla Beniwal of unconstitutional appointment of retired Justice R A Mehta as the Lokayukta but even put a question mark on Gujarat High Court Chief Justice S J Mukhopadhaya for "suo motto" recommending name of the judge for the appointment.

The 4-page memorandum submitted to President Pratibha Patil says no consultation with the Chief Justice was sought on Justice Mehta's name and hence the state government informed him its inability to accept it "mainly because his prejudice against the state government stood demonstrated by his active participation in the campaigns since his retirement as a judge."

The memorandum asserted that "the Chief Justice is not entitled to recommend a name without the state government initiating the process nor the Governor can exercise the power of appointing a Lokayukta without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers."

It said the a "malafide" act of the governor in unilateral appointment of "a person who has been a political opponent of the state government" has raised serious apprehension about "the malicious objective of the central government vis-a-vis the popular elected government of state."

The memorandum urged the President to immediately recall the governor for bringing disrepute to the high constitutional status attached to her office and cancel appointment of retired Justice Mehta "as it is in contravention of the provisions of the Constitution of India."

It also sought to clarify that Section 3(1) of the Gujarat Lokayukta Act quoted by the Congress in defence of the Governor's decision does provide for the appointment by the governor in consultation with the High Court Chief Justice and leader of Opposition in the state assembly, but "the intention of the law is not to exclude the Chief Minister."

"In accordance with Article 163 of the Constitution of India, the Chief Minister consults the Chief Justice and the leader of Opposition and makes recommendation to the Governor," but the issue of appointment remained dormant from 2006 t0 2009 "as the Governor refrained from taking the necessary steps," the memorandum said.

In a bid to clarify that Chief Minister Narendra Modi was not preventing appointment of the new Lokayukta that would have probed charges of corruption against him since 2006, the memorandum points out that the state government had recommended the name of retired Justice Kshitij R Vyas as the Lokayukta in 2006.

The Governor returned the file recommending Justice Vyas after holding it back for three years and sought an alternate appointment. The BJP alleged the "political motive" of the Congress heading the ruling coalition in the Centre and Maharashtra in the Maharashtra Government wanting to appoint Justice Vyas as the Maharashtra Human Rights Commission chairman.

"This move by the Congress led government of Maharashtra was mischievously orchestrated by the Congress high command only to enable the Gujarat Government" to return the file of Justice Vyas, the memorandum affirmed, pointing out that the leader of Opposition abstained from five meeting convened to give new names of four retired judges of the Gujarat High Court.

Finally, from among the names recommended by the Gujarat High Court Chief Justice, the state government recommended the appointment of retired Justice Vohra and in the meanwhile Justice Vohra was appointed the chairman of the Judicial Academy in Gujarat by the Chief Justice, pre-empting the possibility of his appointment as the Lokayukta.

The Chief Justice then suggested the name of Justice S D Dave, a retired and ageing judge who expressed unwillingness. It was then the Chief Justice suo moto recommended Justice Mehta.