Kagodu refers motion to oust Upalokayukta Justice Adi to CJ

Cong MLAs had moved ouster motion on Nov 27, 2015

Speaker Kagodu Thimmappa has referred a motion, moved by the Congress, seeking the removal of Upalokayukta Subhash B Adi to Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court Subhro Kamal Mukherjee for further action.

The Speaker, who had kept the motion on removal of Adi pending, had last week said that he had corroborated the required evidence/documents pertaining to the issue. On Saturday, Thimmappa told media persons that he had referred the matter to the chief justice on Friday.

Now with the motion being referred to the chief justice, he, or a judge nominated by him, will have to prepare a report and submit it to the Speaker within 90 days.

If the report of the chief justice or the judge nominated finds the Upalokayukta guilty of misconduct or incapacity, then both Houses can pass a motion with a two-third majority that the anti-corruption watchdog should be removed.

The motion will have to be sent to the Governor. Once the Governor gives his assent to the motion, then the Upalokayukta shall be deemed removed as per the law.

One of the charges made by the Congress in its petition was that Justice Adi  “overstepped”  his jurisdiction and closed a case involving a close relative of BJP leader Jagadish Shettar. The case was related to government medical officer Dr Sheela Patil in Hubballi, who is said to be a relative of Shettar.

The motion initiated by 78 Congress MLAs on November 27 seeking Adi’s removal has been quite controversial and had led to contentious issues with the BJP fiercely opposing the same. The BJP and Congress had sparred over the Speaker’s decision to admit the motion seeking removal of Justice Adi.

Three weeks after the motion was moved, Law Minister T B Jayachandra had made an embarrassing revelation that the very motion had not even been ‘admitted’ and that it had only been ‘moved’.

While BJP MLA Suresh Kumar had contended that the Law Minister was “lying”,  and that the motion had indeed been admitted, Jayachandra had countered it by stating that Kumar had distributed an unauthorised document of the House proceedings.

This was at the time when Justice Adi had moved the High Court seeking reprieve. Advocate General Madhusudan Naik had submitted to the Court that the motion did not restrain Adi from discharging his duties.

The Speaker on his part had maintained that he had not received sufficient evidence, and hence he had not taken an appropriate decision.