Tripura High Court Disposes Lokayukta Appointment Challenge After Petitioner Withdraws PIL

By Our Correspondent

Agartala, August 1, 2025

The Tripura High Court on Thursday disposed of the public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the appointment of former judge Bibhas Kanti Kilikdar as the Lokayukta of Tripura, after the petitioner Advocate Uttam Das voluntarily withdrew the case during the hearing.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Sabyasachi Dutta Purkayastha heard the matter and, before pronouncing any ruling, noted that the petitioner had decided to withdraw the case.

Advocate Uttam Das had filed the PIL questioning the legality of Kilikdar’s appointment, arguing that under the law, only a retired High Court judge or a Grade-I judicial officer is eligible to be appointed as Lokayukta. According to the petitioner, Kilikdar was a Grade-II judicial officer, thereby making him ineligible for the post.

Senior Advocate Piyush Kanti Biswas, appearing on behalf of Lokayukta Bibhas Kanti Kilikdar, strongly refuted the claims. He argued that Kilikdar had served not only as a judicial officer but also as the member of the Tripura Public Service Commission (TPSC), NASA Board, and the NDPS Board. Moreover, Kilikdar has authored seven books on various legal subjects, reinforcing his eligibility for the esteemed position of Lokayukta.

Biswas further alleged that the petition was motivated by personal reasons, stating that Advocate Uttam Das had once appeared for the TPSC examination while Kilikdar was the member in TPSC. The petition, he argued, was driven by personal grievance after failing to secure a position through the TPSC, and hence could not be considered a bona fide public interest litigation.

Citing several landmark rulings from the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, the defense established the credibility and eligibility of Kilikdar. The following cases were cited during arguments:

Hara Govinda Pant vs. Raghukul Tilak (1979) 3 SCC 456

S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India [(1981) SUPP Sub-87]

Kumar Padma Prasad vs. Union of India (1992)

Chandravan vs. State of Rajasthan (1983 Rajasthan 1949)

Adv. Srinivashan Venugopallan vs. Hon’ble M.M. Pareed Pillai & Anr (Kerala, 2009)

S. Subhramaniam vs. State of Kerala [W.P(C) No.1740/2020]

Mithilesh Kr. Singh vs. State of Bihar [2016 (2) PUR 572]

Dattaraj Thawre vs. State of Maharashtra [2005 (1) SCC 590]

State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Parent of Medical Student, Shimla [(1985) 3 SCC 169]

Ashok Kumar Pande vs. State of West Bengal [(2004) 3 SCC 363]

Sri Bimal Kumar Chanda vs. Dr. Ratna Roy & Others [W.P(C)(PIL) 12/2014].

Following arguments from both sides, and before the Court could pass a ruling, the petitioner expressed his desire to withdraw the petition, which was accepted by the bench.

It may be recalled that Bibhas Kanti Kilikdar was appointed as Lokayukta of Tripura following the retirement of senior advocate Kalyan Narayan Bhattacharjee.

more news...