High Court quashed Lokayukta order without hearing it. Supreme Court: not allowed.

The High Court killed an anti-corruption probe against an MLA without even hearing the agency that ordered it.

The Lokayukta had directed a preliminary inquiry into allegations of corruption and disproportionate assets against an elected representative. The MLA went to the Orissa High Court, got the Lokayukta’s order quashed, and the Lokayukta never got a chance to say a word. The Supreme Court just restored the probe — and delivered a warning to every High Court in the country.

THE PLAY: If you challenge a statutory body's order, you must give that body a chance to defend itself. Skip that step, and the entire proceeding can be set aside for violating natural justice.

December 2020: The complaint lands

A Deputy Superintendent of Police from Odisha’s Vigilance Cell filed a complaint against Dr. Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi, an elected MLA. The charge: corruption and disproportionate assets — his wealth far exceeded his known sources of income.

The Odisha Lokayukta (a statutory anti-corruption body that investigates complaints against public servants) received the complaint. Two days later, on December 11, 2020, it passed an order. The Directorate of Vigilance was told to conduct a preliminary inquiry — a fact-finding exercise to see if a full investigation was needed.

The MLA did not wait. He went straight to the Orissa High Court.

February 2021: The High Court strikes — silently

On February 3, 2021, a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court heard the MLA’s petition under Article 226 of the Constitution (the High Court’s power to review decisions of lower courts and tribunals). The court set aside the Lokayukta’s order. Its reasoning: only the Lokayukta’s own inquiry wing could conduct the inquiry — not the Directorate of Vigilance.

There was just one problem. The Lokayukta was never heard. The High Court passed the order on the first motion, without issuing notice to the Lokayukta or giving it any opportunity to present its case.

The Lokayukta filed a review petition. The High Court dismissed it with a non-speaking order — a decision that gave no reasons at all.

The two questions that reached the Supreme Court

The bench of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi framed two issues.

First: Did the High Court violate natural justice by setting aside the Lokayukta’s order without hearing it? The principle of audi alteram partem (the rule that no one should be judged without a hearing) is a cornerstone of Indian law. The Lokayukta argued that a statutory body whose order is being challenged must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard. The MLA’s side argued that the High Court was merely interpreting the law — it did not need to hear the Lokayukta because the issue was purely legal.

Second: Did the Lokayukta have the legal right — called locus standi (the standing to bring a case) — to appeal the High Court’s decision? The MLA argued that the Lokayukta was not a “person aggrieved” because its order had been set aside on a point of law, not because of any personal injury to the Lokayukta itself.

The Supreme Court’s answer: no, and no

The Supreme Court rejected both arguments.

On the first issue: “Setting aside such order on the first motion without notice or hearing violates audi alteram partem,” the bench observed. When a High Court exercises its writ jurisdiction to set aside an order of a statutory body, it must afford that body an opportunity of hearing before passing the order. The High Court’s order was procedurally flawed from the start.

On the second issue: a statutory body whose order has been set aside by a High Court is indeed a “person aggrieved” and has locus standi to challenge that judgment by invoking Article 136 (the Supreme Court’s special power to hear appeals from any court or tribunal). The Lokayukta was not a mere spectator — it was the authority whose decision had been nullified. It had every right to defend its own order.

Why the Lokayukta’s order was correct on merits

The Supreme Court did not stop at the procedural violation. It also examined the substance of the High Court’s ruling.

The High Court had held that only the Lokayukta’s own inquiry wing could conduct a preliminary inquiry. The Supreme Court disagreed. It examined Section 20(1) of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014, which deals with the procedure for preliminary inquiries. The provision uses the phrase “any agency” — not “its own inquiry wing only.”

Reading Section 20(1)(a) together with Sections 25 and 28 of the same Act, the court concluded that the Lokayukta has the discretion to direct a preliminary inquiry to be conducted either by its own inquiry wing or by any other agency, including the State Vigilance and Crime Branch. The term “any agency” in Section 20(1)(a) includes the Directorate of Vigilance.

The court also rejected the argument that bias arose because the complainant was a police officer from the Vigilance Cell and the inquiry was conducted by the same department. The bench noted that the complainant was merely an informant — a person who brought the allegation to the Lokayukta’s attention. The actual preliminary inquiry was conducted by a different officer who had no connection with the complaint. “The principles of bias are not attracted in such circumstances,” the court held.

The probe that was killed without a hearing — brought back to life

The Supreme Court allowed the Lokayukta’s appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment and the review order, and restored the Lokayukta’s direction for a preliminary inquiry. The probe that was killed without a hearing was brought back to life.

For practitioners, the message is clear: never let a court pass an order against a statutory body without ensuring that body has been heard. And when a statute uses the phrase “any agency,” courts will read it broadly — unless the statute explicitly restricts the choice.