The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday gave Punjab two days to explain steps it had taken for the appointment of a Lokpal in the state. Taking note of state’s submission that the matter was still under consideration, Chief Justice Sheel Nagu verbally observed: “That means you are encouraging corruption.”
The assertion came as the bench comprising Chief Justice Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry warned the court pass “appropriate orders” if the state’s response was not found satisfactory. The bench also observed that the office of Lokpal in Punjab had been lying vacant since October 8, 2025, adding that appointment was one of the promises in the election manifesto.
Responding to the observations, the state counsel submitted that the earlier incumbent had resigned and no fresh appointment had been made thereafter. Seeking time to obtain instructions, the counsel submitted that the matter was “under consideration”, adding that notice in the case had been issued only on April 10. The counsel also submitted that the appointment process involved consultation with the Governor.
Dictating the order in open court, the bench said: “We direct the counsel for the State of Punjab to inform us as to what process has been initiated on the part of the state for appointment of Lokpal.”
The matter was placed before the bench after advocate Vishal Mehta filed the public interest litigation seeking urgent directions to the state of Punjab to appoint a Lokpal after alleging that the statutory anti-corruption mechanism had been rendered “completely non-functional” since the post fell vacant on October 8, 2025.
The petitioner asserted that the prolonged inaction by the state authorities defeated the very object of the Punjab Lokpal Act, 1996, and violated citizens’ fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21. Describing the Lokpal as a crucial statutory safeguard providing an independent forum for redressal of complaints against corruption and maladministration at the highest levels, the petitioner contended that no steps had been initiated for appointment despite the office remaining vacant for over six months, creating a “complete vacuum” in the state’s anti-corruption framework.
The plea further pointed out that the state government had earlier abolished State Vigilance Commission on the assurance that the Lokpal institution would be strengthened and made the primary instrument to combat corruption.
Referring to the Aam Aadmi Party’s election manifesto, the petitioner stated that it envisaged a strong and empowered “Jan Lokpal” framework, with commitments to strengthen anti-corruption institutions and grant greater autonomy to the Lokpal/Lokayukta. It also cited statements attributed to Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann assuring expeditious appointment, but added that no appointment had been made so far.
The petitioner submitted that Punjab had witnessed multiple allegations of corruption, misuse of official position and irregularities in public administration in recent times, including in public contracts, recruitment, illegal mining and financial irregularities in public schemes. In the absence of a functional Lokpal, citizens were left without any independent and efficacious forum to raise grievances against high-ranking public functionaries, the plea added.
The petitioner contended that the continued failure to operationalise the Lokpal, despite statutory mandate and declared assurances, violated the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the rule of law and principles of constitutional governance.
Seeking the court’s intervention, the petitioner urged that directions be issued to the state to initiate and complete the process of appointing the Lokpal in a time-bound manner in the larger public interest.
