THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Legal experts say that there is a loophole in the Lokayukta judgment in the case of misappropriation of the Chief Minister's relief fund. The judgment was left to the full bench of Lokayukta as there was a difference of opinion. There were multiple opinions on whether the complaint against the decision taken by the Cabinet would come under the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta and whether the complaint would stand. In 2019, the full bench presided over by the then Lokayukta Justice Pius Kuriakos had already ruled that, since the case has substance, an examination of its merits is required. Legal experts say that, since this ruling in 2019 is still standing, the examination of merit cannot be conducted 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.

The order of the Lokayukta states that, since there is a difference of opinion on two matters, the case is left to the full bench. If the Lokayukta and the Upalokayukta had a difference of opinion, both of them should write 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. The two dissenting judgments, recorded separately, should be jointly handed over to the third Upalokayukta who is hearing the case for the first time. This is considered a procedural lapse. Under Article 227 of the Constitution, private individuals can file a writ petition in the court citing these matters.

At the same time, since the case is against the decision of a Cabinet that is not in power now, the question also arises as to whether it will fall within the purview of Section Fourteen of the Lokayukta. Although the Chief Minister who was the head of that cabinet is still in power, the cabinet itself no longer exists. The other side contends that the responsibility for the decision remains a legal question then. It is argued that there is no error in ruling that the matter should be examined and decided by a larger bench.