Page 1

1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.872 OF 2015 SACHCHIDANAND GUPTA  “SACHCHEY” ...PETITIONER

VERSUS STATE OF U.P. THROUGH  CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS.     ...RESPONDENTS

AND  CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.733 OF 2015

IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.410 OF 2012

WITH CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.3 OF 2016

IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.410 OF 2012

J U D G M E N T

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. By our order dated 16th December, 2015 in  Writ Petition (Civil) No. 301 of 2015 we had,  in exercise of our power under Article 142 of  the  Constitution  of  India,  appointed  Justice  Virendra Singh (Retd.) as the Lokayukta of the

Page 2

2

State of Uttar Pradesh. Pursuant to the said  order the Hon’ble Governor of Uttar Pradesh had  issued  a  consequential  order  dated  18th  

December,  2015  appointing  Justice  Virendra  Singh (Retd.) as the Lokayukta.  

2. This  Writ  Petition  under  Article  32  has  been filed seeking interference with the order  of  the  Hon’ble  Governor  dated  18th December,  2015 primarily on the ground that this Court  was misled by the State of Uttar Pradesh into  passing the order dated 16th December, 2015 in  W.P.(C)  No.301  of  2015  appointing  Justice  Virendra Singh (Retd.) as the Lokayukta.

3. The circumstances in which the appointment  of  Justice  Virendra  Singh  (Retd.)  as  the  Lokayukta  of  the  State  of  Uttar  Pradesh  was  made by this Court on 16th December, 2015 have  been set out in details in the said order. The  said facts may be recapitulated.  

“While deciding Writ Petition No.410  of  2012  and  other  connected  cases

Page 3

3

decided  on  April  24,  2014,  we  had  inter  alia  passed  the  following  order :- xxx xxx xxx

"In  the  light  of  the  above  discussion,  we  hold  that  Respondent 2 is duly holding  the office of Lokayukta, U.P.  under a valid law enacted by  the competent legislature viz  the  Uttar  Pradesh  Lokayukta  and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 as  amended by the U.P. Lokayukta  and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment)  Act, 2012. However, we direct  the  State  to  take  all  endeavours  for  selecting  the  new incumbent for the office  of Lokayukta and—Up-Lokayuktas  as per the provisions of the  Act preferably within a period  of six months from today."  

xxx xxx xxx  The  period  of  six  months  with  

effect  from  24th April,  2014  within  which this Court had desired that the  Lokayukta should be appointed is long  over.

Alleging willful disobedience of  the  said  directions  of  the  Court  Contempt  Petition  No.70  of  2015  was  instituted before this Court which was  disposed of on 23.07.2015 by observing

Page 4

4

as hereunder:-  "The  contempt  petition  is  disposed of on the hope and  expectation  that  the  constitutional  functionaries  entrusted  with  the  duty  of  making  appointment  of  Lokayukta  will  finalize  the  matter and take their decision  within a period of thirty days  from today"  

In  the  said  order  we  had  also  observed that the above order of the  Court should be brought to the notice  of all the authorities concerned.  

The hope and expectation of this  Court expressed in the aforesaid order  dated  23rd July,  2015  appears  to  be  gone in vain and has not been heeded  to  by  any  of  the  constitutional  functionaries  associated  with  the  process  of  appointment.  In  fact,  in  the  above  circumstances,  another  contempt petition being No.733 of 2015  has  been  filed  before  this  Court  wherein vide order dated 4.12.2015 the  Court had issued notice. The present  writ petition under Article 32 of the  Constitution was filed on 30th April,  2015 and notice thereon was issued on  2nd July, 2015.

Page 5

5

In the aforesaid writ petition a  prayer  has  been  made  for  a  writ  or  direction  commanding  the  State  Government  to  immediately  appoint  a  new  incumbent  as  Lokayukta  and  dispense with the services of Justice  N.K.  Mehrotra  (Retd.),  the  present  Lokayukta. Apart from the above, there  is a prayer for initiation of contempt  proceedings  against  the  Chief  Secretary  of  the  State  of  Uttar  Pradesh  and  other  consequential  directions. No response to the notice  issued by this Court as far as back on  2nd July, 2015 has been filed by any of  the  contesting  parties  including  the  Chief  Secretary,  though  notice  has  been duly served.  

After hearing the writ petition  on  14th  December,  2015,  we  had  permitted the learned Advocate General  of the State, who was present in the  Court, to ensure that the situation is  remedied  and  appropriate  orders  for  appointment  of  the  Lokayukta  are  passed  on  or  before  16.12.2015  i.e.  today.  The  same  has  also  not  been  done.

Page 6

6

   The  facts  stated  above  would  indicate  that  the  initial  order  of  this Court dated 24th April, 2014 and  the subsequent order dated 23rd July,  2015  in  Contempt  Petition  No.70  of  2015 has gone unheeded. The present is  a case where the Court is confronted  by the failure, if not the refusal of  the  constitutional  functionaries,  to  comply with the repeated orders of the  highest Court of the land. The matter  is deeply regrettable and to say the  least is astonishing.”  

4. The issue that presently confronts the  Court is whether the name of Shri Justice  Virendra  Singh  (Retd.)  which  was  one  of  the five names placed before the Court on  behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh with  the statement that three names including  the  name  of  Shri  Justice  Virendra  Singh  (Retd.) had the concurrence of the Hon'ble  Chief  Minister  and  the  Leader  of  Opposition (the Hon'ble Chief Justice of  the High Court had not expressed his mind

Page 7

7

on  any  of  the  said  names)  was  a  misrepresentation on the part of the State  as is now sought to be contended on behalf  of  the  petitioner.  It  is  specifically  asserted  by  the  petitioner  that  in  the  meeting that took place on 15th December,  2015 objections being raised to the name  of Shri Justice Virendra Singh (Retd.) by  the  Hon'ble  Chief  Justice  of  the  High  Court,  the  Hon'ble  Chief  Minister   had  agreed that his name would be dropped from  the panel.

5. In  this  regard,  we  have  been  taken  through a letter dated 16th December, 2015  of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High  Court  to  His  Excellency  the  Governor  of  Uttar  Pradesh  wherein  the  said  fact  has  been recited and also the basis on which  the  Hon'ble  Chief  Justice  of  the  High  Court had opposed the name of Shri Justice  Virendra Singh (Retd.) has been set out.

Page 8

8

6. From  the  aforesaid  letter  of  the  Hon’ble Chief Justice, it appears that 5  names, mentioned below, were suggested by  the Hon’ble Chief Justice: (i)  Mr. Justice S U Khan (ii) Mr. Justice Devendra Pratap Singh (iii)Mr. Justice Amar Saran (iv) Mr. Justice Shri Kant Tripathi (v)  Mr. Justice Sunil Hali

7. In  the  said  letter  it  is  further  stated that there was however no unanimity  on the names proposed by the Hon'ble Chief  Justice  of  the  High  Court.  The  name  of  Shri  Justice  Virendra  Singh  (Retd.)  was  thereafter  suggested  by  Hon’ble  Chief  Minister. The Chief Justice expressed his  reservations as regards the name of Shri  Justice  Virendra  Singh  (Retd.).  Accordingly  it  was  agreed  that  the  said  name  would  be  dropped.  Four  other  names  were  suggested  by  the  Hon'ble  Chief  Minister which are as follows:

Page 9

9

(i) Mr. Justice Zaki Ullah Khan (ii) Mr. Justice Sanjay Misra (iii) Mr. Justice Kalimullah Khan (iv) Mr. Justice Imtiyaz Murtaza

8. In  the  letter  of  the  Hon'ble  Chief  Justice  it  is  also  mentioned  that  no  agreement could be reached on any of the  aforesaid  names  and  the  Hon'ble  Chief  Minister  had  in  these  circumstances  suggested the name of Shri  Justice A.N.  Mittal, a sitting judge for appointment as  Lokayukta  to  which  the  Hon'ble  Chief  Justice agreed to revert in the evening of  16th  December,  2015.  In  the  meantime  the  order of this Court was passed.   

9. The names that were placed before the  Court  on  16th December,  2015  are  as  follows:

(i) Mr. Justice Virendra Singh (ii) Mr. Justice Imtiyaz Murtaza (iii) Mr. Justice A.N. Mittal (iv) Mr. Justice Sanjay Misra

Page 10

10

(v) Mr. Justice Kalimullah Khan

Out  of  the  aforesaid  names,  Serial  Nos. (i),(ii) and (iv) were stated to have  the  consensus  of  the  Hon'ble  Chief  Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.  

10. From the letter of the Chief Minister  dated 1st January, 2016 to His Excellency  the  Governor  of  Uttar  Pradesh  in  connection  with  the  letter  dated  16th  

December,  2015  of  the  Hon'ble  Chief  Justice  of  High  Court,  which  letter  has  also been placed before us, two lists of  names that were considered on 15th  and 16th  

December, 2015 have been set out. List-A  consists  of  3  names  whereas  List-B  consists of names of 51 judges of the High  Court  who  had  retired  between  2011  and  2015.  List-A  referred  to  by  the  Chief  Minister in his letter dated 01.01.2016 is  extracted below:–

Page 11

11

LIST A

Sr. No.

Applicant Date  of  Application /Letter

Present  Designation

1. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virendra Singh

28.05.2014 President, State  Consumer Dispute  Redressal  Commission,  Uttarpradesh

2. Hon’ble  Justice  Zaki Ulla Khan

02.07.2014 Retired 3. Hon’ble  Justice  

Sabha Jeet Yadav 07.11.2014 Retired

11. Though there appears to be some common  names  in  the  lists  mentioned  in  the  letters  of  the  Hon'ble  Chief  Justice  of  the  High  Court  and  the  Hon'ble  Chief  Minister,  the  reaching  of  any  agreement  between the Chief Minister and the Leader  of  the  Opposition  on  any  of  the  three  names furnished to the Court i.e.(i) Mr.  Justice Virendra Singh; (ii) Mr. Justice  Imtiyaz  Murtaza;  and  (iii)  Mr.  Justice  Sanjay Mishra is not borne out from the  record.  In  para  7  of  the  letter  dated

Page 12

12

1.1.2016  of  the  Hon’ble  Chief  Minister  though  there  is  mention  of  a  consensus  between the Chief Minister and the Leader  of the Opposition on some names, details  thereof are not mentioned. However, in the  list laid before this Court three names on  which  there  was  reportedly  an  agreement  between the Chief Minister and the Leader  of the Opposition has been mentioned. Para  7  of  the  said  letter  may  therefore  be  reproduced below:

“7. It is material to point out  that  the  five  names  of  Hon’ble  Judges were given by the State to  the  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  on  16.12.2005.  Out of them, on few  names,  there  were  consensus  between  me  and  the  Leader  of  Opposition, Legislative Assembly,  wherein  the  name  of  Retired  Justice  Mr.  Virendra  Singh  was  included, on which Chief Justice  had no consensus.”

Page 13

13

In fact from para 7, extracted above,  it is clear that the Hon’ble Chief Justice  of the High Court had reservations on the  name  of  Shri  Justice  Virendra  Singh  (Retd.).  In  this  regard,  there  is  a  subsequent letter dated 6th January, 2016  of the Leader of Opposition which clearly  belies  the  fact  that  any  agreement  was  reached  on  any  name  between  the  Hon'ble  Chief  Minister  and  the  Leader  of  Opposition.

12.   In the facts stated above, we are  persuaded  to  hold  that  our  order  appointing  Shri  Justice  Virendra  Singh  (Retd.) as Lokayukta was on the basis of  the statement made on behalf of the State  of Uttar Pradesh which now appears to be  somewhat  inaccurate.  The  picture  that  emanates from the above narration of facts  is hazy, unclear and uncertain and we are  left in serious doubt as to whether the

Page 14

14

constitutional/statutory  functionaries  or  at least two of them had, at all, agreed  on  any  name  or  names.  It  is  unfortunate  that  constitutional/statutory  functionaries,  inspite  of  prolonged  and  extended  meetings,  continued  to  have  serious differences on a relatively simple  issue i.e. appointment of the Lokayukta.   13.  However,  we  now  have  on  record  the  subsequent  reservation  of  the  Hon'ble  Chief  Justice  of  the  High  Court  with  regard to the suitability of Shri Justice  Virendra  Singh  (Retd.)  as  Lokayukta  as  expressed in the Hon'ble Chief Justice’s  letter  dated  16th December,  2015  to  His  Excellency the Governor of Uttar Pradesh.  We  can  only  wish  that  the  above  reservation of the Hon’ble Chief Justice  had been placed before us before we had  passed  our  earlier  order  dated  16th  

December,  2015  in  Writ  Petition  (Civil)

Page 15

15

No. 301 of 2015 particularly when the High  Court  was  represented  before  us  on  the  said date.    

14. In view of the above reservations and  having regard to the fact that this Court  in  Justice K.P. Mohapatra  versus  Sri Ram  Chandra Nayak and others [(2002) 8 SCC 1  (paragraph  12  and  16)]  had  accorded  primacy  to  the  opinion  of  the  Hon'ble  Chief Justice in the consultative process  for  appointment  of  Lokayukta,  we  are  inclined  to  recall  our  order  dated  16th  

December,  2015  and  instead  appoint  Shri  Justice  Sanjay  Misra  (Retired  Judge  of  Allahabad High Court) as the Lokayukta of  Uttar  Pradesh.  In  making  the  aforesaid  appointment we have taken note of the fact  that  the  name  of  Justice  Sanjay  Misra  appears in the common list of names that  were discussed as mentioned in the letters  of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High

Page 16

16

Court  and  the  Hon'ble  Chief  Minister  referred to above.

15. Consequential orders in terms of the  above  direction  may  be  issued  by  the  authority/functionary  without  delay,  and  compliance report be sent to the Registry  of this Court within a week.   

16. With  the  aforesaid  direction  and  observation,  the  writ  petition  and  the  contempt  petitions  as  also  all  other  pending applications are disposed of.   

....................,J. (RANJAN GOGOI)

....................,J. (PRAFULLA C. PANT)

NEW DELHI JANUARY 28, 2016