Legal experts say that the Kerala Lokayukta’s verdict in the case related to the misappropriation of Chief Minister’s Distress Relief Fund (CMDRF) has not followed the principle of Res Judicata.

Legal experts are of the opinion that any issue which was settled by a court cannot be examined again. In legal parlance, this is interpreted as Res Judicata. It is also pointed out that such re-hearing is illegal under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Advertisement

In the order of the Lokayukta, it has been stated that the decision to constitute a three-member bench was taken as the Lokayukta and the Upa Lokayukta had a difference of opinion.

The Division Bench of Lokayukta  comprising Lokayukta Cyriac Joseph and Upa lokayukta Harun-ul-Rashid differed on whether the Cabinet’s decision to allocate money from the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund (CMDRF) can be reviewed under the Lokayukta Act and whether the complaint is maintainable.

However, in 2019, the full bench presided over by the then Lokayukta Justice Pius Kuriakos ruled that the complaint is maintainable and it can be examined on merit.

A full bench comprising Lokayukta Justice Pius C Kuriakose, and Upa-lokayuktas Justices K P Balachandran and A K Basheer in January 2019 decided to admit the  complaint filed by R S Sasikumar. The bench decided that the complaint was maintainable before the Lokayukta and ordered notice to the respondents.

The bench was constituted after there was a difference of opinion among the Lokayukta and one of the Upa-lokayuktas regarding the jurisdiction of the agency to probe disbursement of assistance from CMDRF

Section 11 of  the Civil procedure Code says that no court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.

Res Judicata is a doctrine of estoppel which bars the re-hearing of certain suits in specified circumstances. It is a Latin term which means “a thing  adjudicated.” It implies to an issue definitely settled by judicial decision for not being re-heard again

The principle of Res Judicata is based on the need of giving a finality of judicial decisions.

It has also been pointed out that there is procedure violation in the order. The order of the Lokayukta states that, since there is a difference of opinion between the members in the two-member bench , the case is left to the full bench

If the Lokayukta and the Upalokayukta had a difference of opinion, both of them should have written different verdicts explaining the reasons and the legal rationale.

Failure to do so will be denying the parties the right to know the particulars of the case.