
The Gujarat High Court is hearing an important case related to the appointment of the Lokayukta in Gujarat. The issue is whether the Governor can appoint the Lokayukta at his discretion or whether appointment can be made only upon obtaining the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers led by the Chief Minister. During the period 2006-2010, the Gujarat state government submitted names of two prospective appointees for the post of Lokayukta to the Governor. But no appointment was made during this period. On August 26, 2011 the Governor appointed retired judge R.A.Mehta as Lokayukta, whose name was not among those submitted by the state government. The Gujarat state government moved the High Court to quash the appointment on the ground that the Governor made the appointment without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers led by the Chief Minister. Section 3 of the Gujarat Lokayukta Act, provides in part that “the Governor shall by warrant under his hand and seal, appoint a person to be known as Lokayukta”. The Governor acted under this section to make the appointment of Lokayukta. However, the state government has argued that section 3 has to be understood in light of Article 163(1) of the Constitution. Article 163(1) provides that the Governor shall be aided and advised in the exercise of his functions by a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head. Thus, as per this line of argument, the Governor violated the provision of Article 163(1) when she failed to take the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers led by the Chief Minister before exercising the function of appointing the Lokayukta. At the time of writing this post, news reports suggested that the two judges hearing the case are divided over the issue. It remains to be seen whether this issue will be referred to a larger bench. The outcome of this case could have wider implications on the constitutional role of governors if it sets guideposts on the extent to which they act independent of the advice of the council of ministers.
Parliament voted on the Demands for Grants for the Ministry of Home Affairs on May 02, 2012. During the debate, MPs expressed concern over the status of police forces in different States of the country. They emphasised the need to augment the capability of police forces. Though ‘Police’ and ‘Public Order’ are State subjects, the union government provides assistance to States for strengthening their forces. For instance, the Ministry of Home Affairs has been implementing a non-plan scheme for ‘Modernization of Police Forces’ since 1969-70. Under the scheme assistance is provided in the form of grants-in-aid towards construction of secure police stations, outposts, for purchase of vehicles, equipment etc. (To know more about the scheme, see an earlier blog post on the issue.) At the all India level, the sanctioned strength of State Police equals 20.6 lakh personnel. Though there exist wide variations across States, at an average this amounts to 174 police personnel per lakh population. However, the actual ratio is much lower because of high vacancies in the police forces. At the aggregate level, 24% positions are vacant. The table below provides data on the strength of state police forces as in Jan, 2011
State | Sanctioned strength | Sanctioned policemen/ lakh of population | Vacancy |
Andhra Pradesh | 1,31,099 | 155 | 31% |
Arunachal Pradesh | 11,955 | 966 | 42% |
Assam | 62,149 | 200 | 12% |
Bihar | 85,939 | 88 | 27% |
Chhattisgarh | 50,869 | 207 | 18% |
Goa | 6,108 | 348 | 16% |
Gujarat | 87,877 | 151 | 27% |
Haryana | 61,307 | 248 | 28% |
Himachal Pradesh | 17,187 | 256 | 22% |
Jammu & Kashmir | 77,464 | 575 | 6% |
Jharkhand | 73,005 | 235 | 30% |
Karnataka | 91,256 | 155 | 10% |
Kerala | 49,394 | 141 | 7% |
Madhya Pradesh | 83,524 | 115 | 9% |
Maharashtra | 1,53,148 | 139 | 10% |
Manipur | 31,081 | 1,147 | 26% |
Meghalaya | 12,268 | 469 | 17% |
Mizoram | 11,246 | 1,112 | 6% |
Nagaland | 24,226 | 1,073 | 0% |
Orissa | 53,291 | 130 | 18% |
Punjab | 79,565 | 291 | 14% |
Rajasthan | 79,554 | 118 | 11% |
Sikkim | 5,421 | 886 | 27% |
Tamil Nadu | 1,20,441 | 178 | 15% |
Tripura | 44,310 | 1,224 | 17% |
Uttar Pradesh | 3,68,260 | 184 | 59% |
Uttarakhand | 20,775 | 211 | 24% |
West Bengal | 72,998 | 81 | 18% |
A&N Islands | 4,417 | 1,018 | 22% |
Chandigarh | 7,873 | 695 | 22% |
D&N Haveli | 325 | 114 | 13% |
Daman & Diu | 281 | 140 | 6% |
Delhi | 81,467 | 441 | 1% |
Lakshadweep | 349 | 478 | 36% |
Puducherry | 3,941 | 352 | 25% |
All India | 20,64,370 | 174 | 24% |
Source: Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 90, 13th March, 2012 and Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 1042, March 20, 2012