Page 1

        REPORTABLE  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 410 OF 2012

Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui              .... Petitioner (s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another                 .... Respondent(s)       

WITH  

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 289 OF 2013 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 228 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO.     4853           OF 2014

[@SLP (C) NO. 27319 OF 2012] T.C.(C) NO. 74 OF 2013

T.P. (C) NOS. 1228 & 1230 OF 2012 T.P. (C) NOS. 1248 & 1250 OF 2012

T.P. (C) NO. 1425 OF 2012 T.P. (C) NOS. 1412-1413 OF 2012

J U D G M E N T

P.Sathasivam, CJI.

Writ Petition (C) No. 410 of 2012

1)     The  above  writ  petition,  under  Article  32  of  the  

Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner seeking  

a  writ  of  quo  warranto  against  Mr.  Justice  N.K.  Mehrotra  

1

Page 2

(retd.), Lokayukta for the State of Uttar Pradesh, Respondent  

No. 2 herein, for continuing as Lokayukta after 15.03.2012.  

The petitioner is also challenging the constitutional validity of  

the  Uttar  Pradesh  Lokayukta  and  Up-Lokayuktas  

(Amendment) Act, 2012 (for short “the Amendment Act”) to  

the  extent  being  ultra  vires to  the  provisions  of  the  

Constitution of India.

2) Brief facts:

(a) Mr.  Justice  N.K.  Mehrotra  (retd.),  Respondent  No.  2  

herein,  was appointed as Lokayukta for the State of Uttar  

Pradesh on 16.03.2006 under the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta  

and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 (for short “the Act”).

(b) Section 5(1) of the Act provides that the term for which  

Lokayukta  shall  hold  office  is  six  years  from the  date  on  

which  he  enters  upon  his  office.   Further,  Section  5(3)  

provides that on ceasing to hold office, the Lokayukta or Up-

Lokayukta  shall  be  ineligible  for  further  appointment,  

whether  as  a  Lokayukta  or  Up-Lokayukta  or  in  any  other  

capacity  under  the  Government  of  Uttar  Pradesh.  

2

Page 3

Respondent  No.  2  completed  his  term  of  six  years  on  

15.03.2012.

(c) On 15.03.2012, the new government formed after the  

Uttar Pradesh State Assembly elections.  On the same day,  

an  Ordinance  for  amending  the  Act  was  passed  by  the  

Cabinet and sent to the Governor of Uttar Pradesh for assent.  

However,  the  same  did  not  receive  the  assent  of  the  

Governor.

(d) On 18.03.2012, another Ordinance on the same subject  

matter  was sent for the assent of the Governor and after  

receiving  the  assent  of  the  Governor,  the  same  was  

published which came into effect from 22.03.2012.  Under  

the said Ordinance, Section 5(1) of the Act was amended and  

the term of the Lokayukta was extended to eight years with  

effect from 15.03.2012.

(e) Subsequently,  Respondent  No.  1  –  State  of  Uttar  

Pradesh  enacted  the  Amendment  Act  which  received  the  

assent  of  the  Governor  on  06.07.2012.   By  the  said  

Amendment  Act,  the  term of  the  U.P.  Lokayukta  and  Up-

3

Page 4

Lokayukta was extended from six years to eight years or till  

the successor enters upon his office. The said Amendment  

Act also seeks to limit the ineligibility of the Lokayuktas’ or  

Up-Lokayuktas’  for  further  appointment  under  the  

Government of Uttar Pradesh only on ceasing to hold office  

as such, and for making the said provisions applicable to the  

sitting Lokayukta or Up-Lokayukta, as the case may be, on  

the  date  of  commencement  of  the  said  ordinance,  i.e.,  

15.03.2012.

(f) Challenging the said Amendment Act, the petitioner is  

before  us  by  way of  writ  petition  under  Article  32  of  the  

Constitution of India.

3) Similar prayers have been made by the petitioners in  

Writ Petitions (C) Nos. 228 of 2012 and 289 of 2013.  Similar  

petitions were also filed in the High Court of Judicature at  

Allahabad.  In view of the similarity of the issues involved in  

these petitions, transfer petitions, viz., T.P. (C) Nos. 1228 &  

1230 of 2012, T.P. (C) Nos. 1248 & 1250 of 2012, T.P. (C) No.  

1425 of 2012 and T.P. (C) Nos. 1412-1413 of 2012 have been  

4

Page 5

filed before this Court.  However, T.P.(C) No. 1229 of 2012  

was  directed  to  be  transferred  to  this  Court  by  an  order  

dated 01.02.2013 and, accordingly, the same is numbered as  

T.C.(C) No. 74 of 2013.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.27319 of 2012

4) Leave granted in Special Leave Petition.

5) This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  order  dated  

27.08.2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of  

Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24905  

of  2012  whereby  the  High  Court,  while  allowing  the  

amendment application to the writ petition and holding the  

writ petition to be maintainable, directed to list the petition  

on 27.09.2012 for hearing on merits.   

6) By  way of  the  said  amendment  application,  the  writ  

petitioner sought to add two grounds in the writ petition, viz.,  

the  Amendment  Act  is  violative  of  the  provisions  of  the  

Constitution of India and the same was wrongly introduced  

as a Money Bill in clear disregard to the provisions of Article  

5

Page 6

199 of the Constitution of India.  Accordingly, it was prayed  

to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus  

declaring the Amendment Act as ultra vires the provisions of  

the Constitution of India.   

7) Being  aggrieved  of  the  judgment  and  order  dated  

27.08.2012, the State of U.P. has filed the afore-said appeal  

by way of special leave.

8) By an order  dated 24.09.2012,  this  Court  stayed the  

further proceedings in CMWP No. 24905 of 2012.  

9) Heard  Mr.  K.K.  Venugopal,  learned senior  counsel  for  

the petitioners in W.P.(C)  Nos. 228 and 410 of 2012,  Mr.  

Ashok H. Desai, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior  

counsel  for  the  State  of  Uttar  Pradesh  and  Dr.  Rajeev  

Dhawan, learned senior counsel for Mr. Justice N.K. Mehrotra  

(retd.), Respondent No. 2 herein in W.P.(C) Nos. 228 and 410  

of 2012.   

Contentions:

10) Mr.  K.K.  Venugopal,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  

6

Page 7

petitioner,  submitted that,  by way of the Amendment  Act,  

the State of U.P. has, in substance and effect, reappointed  

Justice  N.K.  Mehrotra  (retd.),  Respondent  No.  2  herein,  as  

Lokayukta of the State of U.P. notwithstanding the fact that  

his six years’ term had already expired on 15.03.2012.  There  

is  a  statutory  bar  against  the  reappointment  of  the  

Lokayukta in terms of Section 5(3) of the Act.

11) Mr.  Venugopal  further  submitted  that  by passing  the  

Amendment Act, the State Government handpicked a person  

who they believe would ensure that the Chief Minister, his  

Ministers and political supporters would be protected, despite  

the  acts  of  corruption  in  which  they  may  indulge  in.  The  

reappointment of Justice Mehrotra (retd.), who had demitted  

the  office  and  was  prohibited  from  holding  any  post,  

bypassed the safeguards contained in Section 3 of the Act,  

which stands unamended.

12) It was further submitted that the Amendment Act was  

not even passed by the State Legislature in accordance with  

the provisions of the Constitution of India and is, thus, a mere  

7

Page 8

scrap of paper in the eyes of law.  The Bill in question was  

presented as a Money Bill when, on the face of it, it could  

never be called as a Money Bill as defined in Articles 199(1)  

and 199(2) of the Constitution of India.  Since the procedure  

for an Ordinary Bill was not followed and the assent of the  

Governor was obtained to an inchoate and incomplete Bill  

which  had  not  even  gone  through  the  mandatory  

requirements  under  the  Constitution  of  India,  the  entire  

action was unconstitutional and violative of Article 200 of the  

Constitution of India.

13) Mr. Ashok H. Desai, learned senior counsel for the State  

of  U.P.,  submitted  that  the  writ  petition  itself  is  not  

maintainable  in  law  or  on  facts.   In  the  absence  of  any  

violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner himself, the  

present  writ  petition under  Article  32 is  not  maintainable.  

Moreover, the present writ petition has not been filed with  

clean hands.  Mr. Desai pointed out that the petitioner has  

merely stated, in a passing manner, that he is a practicing  

Advocate,  which is  not  a  fair  and candid  statement.   The  

petitioner  has  filed  the  writ  petition  as  a  proxy  of  Shri  

8

Page 9

Naseemuddin  Siddiqui,  ex-Cabinet  Minister,  U.P.  (presently  

the Leader of Bahujan Samaj Party/Leader of Opposition in  

the  U.P.  Legislative  Council),  against  whom,  along  with  

others, Respondent No. 2 has recommended action on grave  

charges of corruption.  The petitioner herein, Mohd. Saeed  

Siddiqui, was the agent/representative (pairokar) of the son  

of Shri Naseemuddin Siddiqui in the complaint against Shri  

Naseemuddin Siddiqui before Respondent No. 2 and he has  

filed the present writ petition, as also his earlier writ petition,  

as a proxy of Shri Naseemuddin Siddiqui.

14) It was further submitted that the petitioner, for oblique  

motives,  is  questioning the  valid  legislative  and executive  

actions.  The writ petition, which has been filed under the  

guise  of  redressing  a  public  grievance,  is  lacking  in  bona  

fides and  is  an  outcome  of  malice and  ill-will,  which  the  

petitioner nurses against Respondent No. 2 for making the  

reports specifically those against Shri Naseemuddin Siddiqui.  

In the present writ petition as also in his earlier writ petition,  

the  petitioner  has  made  yet  another  collateral  attack  by  

questioning  the  title  of  Respondent  No.  2  to  the  office  of  

9

Page 10

Lokayukta in order to stall  the action/enquiry in respect of  

the  grave  charges  of  corruption  that  has  been  ordered  

pursuant to the reports of Respondent No. 2.

15) Besides, learned senior counsel for the State submitted  

that the petitioner has made a collateral attack by seeking a  

writ  of  quo  warranto to  enquire  by  what  authority  

Respondent No. 2 is holding the office of the Lokayukta, Uttar  

Pradesh and at the same time, he has challenged the validity  

of that very law under which the Respondent No. 2 is holding  

the said office, which is impermissible under the settled law.  

It is the stand of the State that in a writ of  quo warranto,  

while enquiring by what authority a  person holds a public  

office, it is impermissible to make a collateral attack on the  

validity of law or statutory provision under which that office is  

being held. Thus, the scope of a writ of  quo warranto  is a  

limited one, by virtue of which it may be enquired by what  

authority a person holds a public office, but the validity of  

that  authority  cannot  be  questioned.  In  this  light,  it  is  

submitted  that  the  writ  petition  is  not  maintainable  for  

making such a collateral attack.

10

Page 11

16)    Mr. Desai also submitted that the Bill in question was  

manifestly  a  Money  Bill  in  view  of  Article  199(1)  of  the  

Constitution  of  India.   Furthermore,  the  claim  of  the  

petitioner is barred by the constitutional provisions, such as  

Articles 199(3) and 212 of the Constitution.  The claim of the  

petitioner  that  the Bill  was passed only by the Legislative  

Assembly and not by both the Houses, is misconceived.  The  

petitioner has overlooked that since the Bill in question was a  

Money Bill, therefore, the contention that it was passed by  

the  Legislative  Assembly  alone  is  per  se misconceived.  

Finally, Mr. Desai submitted that Respondent No. 2 is duly  

holding the office of the Lokayukta under a valid law enacted  

by the competent legislature, viz., the Amendment Act.

17) Dr.  Abhishek  Manu  Singhvi  reiterated  the  submission  

made  by  Mr.  Desai  and  also  pointed  out  the  relevant  

provisions.

18) Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel for Justice  

N.K. Mehrotra (retd.), Respondent No. 2 herein, reiterated the  

contentions raised by Mr. Desai.  In addition to the same, it is  

11

Page 12

submitted that the real purpose of filing the writ petition and  

other connected matters is to stall action on the reports of  

Respondent No. 2 in respect of grave charges of corruption  

against  several  ex-Ministers,  Government  of  U.P.,  one  of  

whom is Shri Naseemuddin Siddiqui, ex-Cabinet Minister, U.P.  

19) Dr.  Dhawan further submitted that the petitioner is a  

proxy  of  Shri  Naseemuddin  Siddiqui.   Further,  both  Shri  

Naseemuddin Siddiqui and his wife were members of the U.P.  

Legislature  when  the  Amendment  Act  was  enacted.  

Accordingly, any challenge to the said Amendment  Act  by  

Shri  Naseemuddin  Siddiqui  or  his  wife  would  not  be  

maintainable  as  they,  as  sitting  members  of  the  State  

Legislature, cannot assail and disown an action of the same  

State Legislature.

20) Dr.  Dhawan  submitted  that  Respondent  No.  2  was  

appointed as the Lokayukta, U.P. on 16.03.2006 and he is  

continuing as such after 15.03.2012 under a valid law, viz.,  

the Amendment Act,  which has been duly enacted by the  

competent legislature.  It was urged that the contentions of  

12

Page 13

the petitioner regarding Money Bill is baseless and pointed  

out that the earlier two amendments to the Act in the year  

1981 and 1988 were also by way of Money Bills,  which is  

concealed by the petitioner.  Further, it was submitted that  

the  finality  of  the  Speaker’s  decision  and  the  legislative  

process cannot be challenged in a Court of law.

21) We have carefully considered the rival contentions and  

perused all the relevant materials.      

Discussion:

22) Among  all  the  contentions/issues  raised,  the  main  

challenge relates to the validity of U.P. Lokayukta and Up-

Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012.  In order to consider the  

claim of both the parties,  it  is useful to refer the relevant  

provisions.  The State of U.P. has brought an Act called the  

U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 (U.P. Act 42 of  

1975).  The said Act was enacted in order to make provision  

for appointment and functions of certain authorities for the  

investigation on grievances and elections against Ministers,  

13

Page 14

legislators and other public servants in certain cases.  The  

Act came into force on 12.07.1977.

23) Section 2(e) defines ‘Lokayukta’ which reads as under:

“Lokayukta” means a person appointed as the Lokayukta  and “Up-Lokayukta” means a person appointed as an Up- Lokayukta, under Section 3”.

24) Section 3 relates to appointment of Lokayukta and Up-

Lokayuktas which reads as under:

“3. Appointment of Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas -

(1) For  the  purpose  of  conducting  investigations  in  accordance with the provisions of  this Act, the Governor  shall,  by  warrant  under  his  hand  and  seal,  appoint  a  person to  be known as the Lokayukta and one or  more  persons  to  be  known  as  the  Up-Lokayukta  or  Up- Lokayuktas:  

Provided that-  

(a)  the  Lokayukta  shall  be  appointed  after  consultation  with  the Chief  Justice of  the High Court  of  Judicature  at  Allahabad  and  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  in  the  Legislative  Assembly  and  if  there  be  no  such  Leader  a  person  elected  in  this  behalf  by  the  members  of  the  opposition in that House in such manner as the Speaker  may direct;  (b) the Up-Lokayukta or Up-Lokayuktas shall be appointed  after consultation with the Lokayukta:  

Provided further that where the Speaker of the Legislative  Assembly is satisfied that circumstances exist on account  of which it is not practicable to consult the Leader of the  Opposition in accordance with clause (a) of the preceding  proviso,  he may intimate the Governor the name of any  

14

Page 15

other  member  of  the  Opposition  in  the  Legislative  Assembly who may be consulted under that clause instead  of the Leader of the Opposition.

(2)  Every  person  appointed  as  the  Lokayukta  or  an  Up- Lokayukta shall before entering upon his office, make and  subscribe before the Governor or some person appointed  in that behalf by him, an oath or affirmation in the form  set out for the purpose in the First Schedule.  

(3)  The  Up-Lokayuktas  shall  be  subject  to  the  administrative control  of  the Lokayukta and in particular  for  the  purpose  of  convenient  disposal  of  investigations  under this Act,  the Lokayukta any issue such general  or  special direction as he may consider necessary to the Up- Lokayukta:

Provided  that  nothing  in  this  sub-section  shall  be  construed  to  authorize  the  Lokayukta  to  question  any  finding  conclusion  or  recommendation  of  an  Up- Lokayukta.”  

25) Section  5  speaks  about  terms  of  office  and  other  

conditions of service of Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta which  

reads as under:

“5. Terms of office and other conditions of service of  Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta.-  (1)  Every  person  appointed  as  the  Lokayukta  or  Up- Lokayukta shall hold office for a term of six years from the  date of which he enters upon his office:  

Provided that,  

(a)  the  Lokayukta  or  an  Up-Lokayukta  may,  by  writing  under  his  hand  addressed  to  the  Governor,  resign  his  office ;

(b)  the Lokayukta or  an Up-Lokayukta  may be removed  from office in the manner specified in section 6.  

xxx xxx xxx

15

Page 16

(3)  On  ceasing  to  hold  office,  the  Lokayukta  or  an  Up- Lokayukta  shall  be  ineligible  for  further  employment  (Whether as the Lokayukta or an Up-Lokayukta) or in any  other capacity under the Government of Uttar Pradesh or  for  any  employment  under  or  office  in  any  such  local  authority corporation. Government, company or society as  is referred to in sub-clause *(v) of clause *(1) of section 2.  

(4)  There  shall  be  paid  to  the  Lokayukta  and  Up- Lokayuktas  such salaries  as are specified  in  the Second  Schedule.”

26) Section 20A speaks about salary and allowances which  

reads as under:

"20A.  Expenditure  to be charged on Consolidated  Fund.- It  is  hereby declared that  the salary,  allowances  and pension payable to or in Expenditure to be respect of  the  Lokayukta  or  the  Up-Lokayuktas,  the  charged  on  expenditure  relating  to  their  staff  and  office  and  other  consolidated expenditure in respect of the implementation  of  this  Act  shall  be  expenditure  charged  on  the  Consolidated Fund of the State of Uttar Pradesh."  

27) It is highlighted by the State that under the said Act,  

Justice N.K. Mehrotra (retd.) was appointed as a Lokayukta  

vide notification dated 09.03.2006.  It is also highlighted that  

since  the  term of  Justice  Mehrotra  (retd.)  was  expired  on  

15.03.2012 after the completion of the period of six years  

under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the  

said Act and no decision had been taken for the appointment  

of another person as the Lokayukta and also taking note of  

the fact that  since the decision to appoint another person  

16

Page 17

would take time, it has been decided to amend the said Act  

to  provide  for  increasing  the  term  of  Lokayukta  and  Up-

Lokayukta from six years to eight years or till his successor  

enters  upon  his  office.   Initially,  the  State  Government  

promulgated an Ordinance, namely, U.P. Lokayukta and Up-

Lokayuktas  (Amendment)  Ordinance  2012  (U.P.  Ordinance  

No. 1 of 2012).  The same was replaced by the Act, namely,  

U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012  

(U.P. Act 4 of 2012).  As per the said ordinance and Act, the  

amendment relating to Section 2 shall be deemed to have  

come into force on 15.03.2012 and the remaining provisions  

shall come into force at once.  It is also relevant to refer the  

amendments brought in by this Amendment Act, which are  

as under:  

“Amendment of Section 5 of U.P. Act No. 42 of 1975

2. In Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up- Lokayuktas  Act,  1975  hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  Principal Act.-

(a)  for  sub-section  (1)  the following  sub-section  shall  be  substituted and be deemed to have been substituted on  March 15, 2012 namely:-

“(1)  Every  person  appointed  as  the  Lokayukta  or  Up- Lokayukta shall hold office for a term of eight years from  the date on which he enters upon his office:  

17

Page 18

Provided  that  the  Lokayukta  or  an  Up-Lokayukta  shall,  notwithstanding the expiration of his term continue to hold  office until his successor enters upon his office.

Provided further that,-

(a)  the  Lokayukta  or  an  Up-Lokayukta  may,  by  writing  under  his  hand  addressed  to  the  Governor,  resign  his  office:

(b)  the Lokayukta or  an Up-Lokayukta  may be removed  from office in the manner specified in Section 6.”

(b) for sub-section (3) the following sub-section shall be  substituted and be deemed to have been substituted on  March 15, 2012 namely:-

“(3)  On ceasing to  hold  office,  the  Lokayukta  or  an Up- Lokayukta shall be ineligible for further employment under  the Government of Uttar Pradesh”

(c) After sub-section (5) the following sub-section shall be  inserted, namely:-

“(6)  The  amendment  made  by  the  Uttar  Pradesh  Lokayukta  and  Up-Lokayuktas  (Amendment)  Act,  2012  shall  be  applicable  to  the  sitting  Lokayukta  or  Up- Lokayuktas  as  the  case  may  be,  on  the  date  of  commencement of the said Act.”

Amendment of Section 13              

“(5-b) After the investigation of any allegation under this  Act, if the Lokayukta or the Up-Lokayukta is satisfied that  such  investigation  has  resulted  in  injustice  or  caused  defamation to the concerned public servants, he may on  their  application,  award compensation  recording reasons  therefore not exceeding the maximum amount of the cost,  out of the cost as imposed on the complainant under sub- section (5-a) to such public servant, who has suffered any  loss  by  reason  of  injustice  or  defamation,  and  such  compensation shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund  of the State.”

Amendment of Section 20-A

18

Page 19

“For section 20-A of the principal Act, the following section  shall be substituted, namely:-

“20-A.  It  is hereby declared that the salary,  allowances  and the pensions payable to or in respect of the Lokayukta  or  the  Up-Lokayuktas,  the  expenditure  relating  to  their  staff and office and the amount of compensation awarded  to the Public Servant under sub-section (5-b) of section 13  by  reason  of  injustice  or  defamation  and  other  expenditure,  in  respect  of  implementation  of  the  provisions of this Act, shall be an expenditure charged on  the Consolidated Fund of the State.”

28) We  have  already  noted  the  object  of  bringing  the  

ordinance and the Act for amendment of certain provisions.  

In  order  to  further  understand  the  intention  of  the  

Government  for  bringing  such  amendment,  it  is  useful  to  

refer  the  statement  of “objects  and reasons”,  which is  as  

under:  

“Statement of objects and reasons:-

The Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975  (U.P.  Act  no.  42  of  1`975)  has  been  enacted  to  make  provision  for  the  appointment  and  functions  of  certain  authorities for the investigation grievances and allegations  against minister,  Legislators and other public servants in  certain  cases.   Under  the  said  Act Shri  Narendra  Kishor  Mehrotra was appointed as Lokayukta vide notification no.  40 Lo.Aa/39-4-2006-15(5) 2006, dated March 9, 2006 from  the date he resumes office.   Shri  Mehrotra  resumed his  office after taking oath on March 16, 2006.  The term of  Shri Mehrotra as such was expired on March 15, 2012 after  the completion of the period of six years under the then  provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the said Act  and no decision  had been taken for  the appointment  of  another person as the Lokayukta.   Since the decision to  appoint  another  person  would  take  time,  it  has  been  decided to amend the said Act to provide for  increasing  

19

Page 20

the term of Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas from six years  to eight years or till his successor enters upon his office, to  limit the ineligibility of the Lokayukta or Up-Lokayuktas for  further  appointment  under  the  Government  of  Uttar  Pradesh  only  on  ceasing  to  hold  office  as  such and  for  making  the  said  provisions  applicable  to  the  sitting  Lokayukta or UP-Lokayuktas as the case may be, on March  15, 2012.  

Since the State Legislature was not in session and  immediate  Legislative  action  was  necessary,  the  Uttar  Pradehs  Lokayukta  or  Up-Lokayuktas  (Amendment)  Ordinance,  2012  (U.P.  Ordinance  No.  1  of  2012)  was  promulgated by the Governor on March 22, 2012.”  

29) Though elaborate arguments have been made by Mr.  

K.K. Venugopal as well as Mr. Desai about the merits of the  

various recommendations/orders passed by Respondent No.  

2  -  Lokayukta  in  respect  of  former  Ministers  and  persons  

connected  with  the  government  in  these  matters,  we are  

primarily concerned about the validity of the Amendment Act  

and  continuance  of  Respondent  No.  2  as  Lokayukta  even  

after expiry of his term.   

30) The main apprehension of the petitioner is that the Bill  

that led to the enactment of the Amendment Act was passed  

as a Money Bill  in violation of Articles 197 and 198 of the  

Constitution of India which should have been passed by both  

the  Houses,  viz.,  U.P.  Legislative  Assembly  and  U.P.  

20

Page 21

Legislative Council and was wrongly passed only by the U.P.  

Legislative  Assembly.   During  the  course  of  hearing,  Mr.  

Desai, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of U.P.,  

placed the original records pertaining to the proceedings of  

the Legislative Assembly, decision of the Speaker as well as  

the Governor, which we are going to discuss in the later part  

of our judgment.

31) Article  199  of  the  Constitution  defines  “Money Bills”,  

which reads as under:

“199 - Definition of "Money Bills"

(1) For the purposes of this Chapter, a Bill shall be deemed  to be a Money Bill if it contains only provisions dealing with  all or any of the following matters, namely:--

(a)  the  imposition,  abolition,  remission,  alteration  or  regulation of any tax;

(b) the regulation of the borrowing of money or the giving  of any guarantee by the State, or the amendment of the  law with respect to any financial obligations undertaken or  to be undertaken by the State;

(c)  the  custody  of  the  Consolidated  Fund  or  the  Contingency Fund of  the State,  the payment  of  moneys  into or the withdrawal of moneys from any such Fund;

(d)  the appropriation of  moneys out of  the Consolidated  Fund of the State;

21

Page 22

(e)  the  declaring  of  any  expenditure  to  be  expenditure  charged  on  the  Consolidated  Fund  of  the  State,  or  the  increasing of the amount of any such expenditure;

(f)  the receipt of  money on account of  the Consolidated  Fund of the State or the public account of the State or the  custody or issue of such money; or

(g) any matter incidental to any of the matters specified in  sub-clauses (a) to (f).

(2) A Bill shall not be deemed to be a Money Bill by reason  only  that  it  provides for  the imposition  of  fines or other  pecuniary penalties, or for the demand or payment of fees  for  licences  or  fees  for  services  rendered,  or  by  reason  that  it  provides  for  the  imposition,  abolition,  remission,  alteration or regulation of any tax by any local authority or  body for local purposes.

(3) If any question arises whether a Bill introduced in the  Legislature of a State which has a Legislative Council is a  Money  Bill  or  not,  the  decision  of  the  Speaker  of  the  Legislative Assembly of such State thereon shall be final.

(4) There shall be endorsed on every Money Bill when it is  transmitted  to  the Legislative  Council  under  article  198,  and when it is presented to the Governor for assent under  article 200, the certificate of the Speaker of the Legislative  Assembly signed by him that it is a Money Bill.”

32) It  is  also  useful  to  refer  Article  212  which  reads  as  

under:

“212 - Courts not to inquire into proceedings of the  Legislature

22

Page 23

(1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislature of a  State shall not be called in question on the ground of any  alleged irregularity of procedure.

(2) No officer or member of the Legislature of a State in  whom powers are vested by or under this Constitution for  regulating  procedure  or  the  conduct  of  business,  or  for  maintaining  order,  in  the  Legislature  shall  be  subject  to  the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by  him of those powers.”

33) The above provisions make it clear that the finality of  

the decision of the Speaker and the proceedings of the State  

Legislature being important privilege of the State Legislature,  

viz., freedom of speech, debate and proceedings are not to  

be  inquired  by  the  Courts.   The  “proceeding  of  the  

Legislature” includes everything said or done in either House  

in the transaction of the Parliamentary Business, which in the  

present case is enactment of the Amendment Act. Further,  

Article  212 precludes the Courts  from interfering with the  

presentation  of  a  Bill  for  assent  to  the  Governor  on  the  

ground  of  non-compliance  with  the  procedure  for  passing  

Bills, or from otherwise questioning the Bills passed by the  

House.  To put it  clear,  proceedings inside the Legislature  

cannot be called into question on the ground that they have  

not been carried on in accordance with the Rules of Business.  

23

Page 24

This is also evident from Article 194 which speaks about the  

powers,  privileges of the House of Legislatures and of the  

members and committees thereof.

34) We have already quoted Article 199.  In terms of Article  

199(3),  the  decision  of  the  Speaker  of  the  Legislative  

Assembly that the Bill in question was a Money Bill is final  

and  the  said  decision  cannot  be  disputed  nor  can  the  

procedure  of  State  Legislature  be  questioned by  virtue  of  

Article 212.  We are conscious of the fact that in the decision  

of this Court in  Raja Ram Pal vs. Hon’ble Speaker Lok  

Sabha and Others (2007) 3 SCC 184, it has been held that  

the  proceedings  which  may  be  tainted  on  account  of  

substantive or gross irregularity or unconstitutionality are not  

protected from judicial scrutiny.

35) Even if it is established that there was some infirmity in  

the procedure in the enactment of the Amendment Act, in  

terms  of  Article  255  of  the  Constitution  the  matters  of  

procedures do not render invalid an Act to which assent has  

been given to by the President or the Governor, as the case  

24

Page 25

may be.

36) In  the  case  of  M.S.M.  Sharma  vs. Shree  Krishna  

Sinha AIR 1960 SC 1186 and  Mangalore Ganesh Beedi  

Works vs. State of Mysore and Another AIR 1963 SC 589,  

the  Constitution  Benches  of  this  Court  held  that  (i)  the  

validity of an Act cannot be challenged on the ground that it  

offends Articles 197 to 199 and the procedure laid down in  

Article  202;  (ii)  Article  212  prohibits  the  validity  of  any  

proceedings in a Legislature of a State from being called in  

question  on  the  ground  of  any  alleged  irregularity  of  

procedure;  and  (iii)  Article  255  lays  down  that  the  

requirements as to recommendation and previous sanction  

are  to  be  regarded  as  a  matter  of  procedure  only.   It  is  

further held that the validity of the proceedings inside the  

Legislature of a State cannot be called in question on the  

allegation that the procedure laid down by the law has not  

been strictly followed and that no Court can go into those  

questions  which  are  within  the  special  jurisdiction  of  the  

Legislature itself,  which has the power to conduct  its  own  

business.

25

Page 26

37) Besides, the question whether a Bill is a Money Bill or  

not can be raised only in the State Legislative Assembly by a  

member  thereof  when  the  Bill  is  pending  in  the  State  

Legislature and before it becomes an Act.  It is brought to our  

notice that  in the instant  case no such question was ever  

raised by anyone.

38) Mr.  K.K.  Venugopal,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  

petitioner has also raised another contention that the Bill was  

passed only by the Legislative Assembly and not by both the  

Houses.  In other words, according to him, it was not passed  

by the  Legislative  Council  and,  therefore,  the  Amendment  

Act is bad.

39) Chapter III of Part VI of the Constitution deals with the  

State  Legislature.   Article  168  relates  to  constitution  of  

Legislatures in States.  The said Article makes it clear that  

the State Legislature consists of the Governor, the Legislative  

Assembly and the Legislative Council.  After the Governor’s  

assent to a Bill, the consequent Act is the Act of the State  

Legislature without any distinction between its  Houses,  as  

26

Page 27

projected by the petitioner.  We have also gone through the  

original records placed by the State and we are satisfied that  

there is no infirmity in passing of the Bill and the enactment  

of the Amendment Act, as claimed by the petitioner.

40) Though it is claimed that the Amendment Act could not  

have  been  enacted  by  passing  the  Bill  as  a  Money  Bill  

because the Act was not enacted by passing the Bill  as a  

Money Bill, as rightly pointed out, there is no such rule that if  

the Bill in a case of an original Act was not a Money Bill, no  

subsequent Bill for amendment of the original Act can be a  

Money Bill.  It is brought to our notice that the Act has been  

amended earlier by the U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas  

(Amendment)  Act,  1988  and  the  same  was  enacted  by  

passing the Money Bill.  By the said Amendment Act of 1988,  

Section 5(1)  of  the  Act  was amended to provide  that  the  

term of the Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta shall be six years  

instead of five years.

41) With  regard  to  giving  effect  to  the  Amendment  Act  

retrospectively,  as  rightly  pointed  out  by  the  State,  a  

27

Page 28

deeming  clause/legal  fiction must  be  given  full  effect  and  

shall be carried to its logical conclusion.  As observed in  K.  

Kamaraja Nadar vs. Kunju Thevar AIR 1958 SC 687, the  

effect  of  a  legal  fiction is  that  a  position which otherwise  

would  not  obtain  is  deemed  to  obtain  under  those  

circumstances.  The materials placed clearly show that the  

Amendment  Act  has  been  enacted  by  a  competent  

legislature with legislative intent to provide a term of eight  

years to  Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta,  whether  present or  

future, to ensure effective implementation of the Act.  We  

are also satisfied that the aforesaid extension of the term of  

Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta from six years to eight years is  

a matter of legislative policy and it cannot be narrowed down  

by saying that the same was enacted only for the benefit of  

Respondent No. 2.

42) As discussed above, the decision of the Speaker of the  

Legislative Assembly that the Bill in question was a Money  

Bill is final and the said decision cannot be disputed nor can  

the  procedure  of  the  State  Legislature  be  questioned  by  

virtue of Article 212.  Further, as noted earlier, Article 252  

28

Page 29

also  shows  that  under  the  Constitution  the  matters  of  

procedure do not render invalid an Act to which assent has  

been given to by the President or the Governor, as the case  

may be.  Inasmuch as the Bill in question was a Money Bill,  

the contrary contention by the petitioner against the passing  

of  the  said  Bill  by  the  Legislative  Assembly  alone  is  

unacceptable.   

43) In  the  light  of  the  above  discussion,  we  hold  that  

Respondent No. 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 Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas  

(Amendment) Act, 2012.   However, we direct the State to  

take all endeavors 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.   

44) Under these circumstances, all  the writ  petitions filed  under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before this Court  are dismissed.  The appeal filed by the State of U.P. and the  

29

Page 30

T.C.(C) No. 74 of 2013 are disposed of on the above terms.  Inasmuch as we have not gone into the merit of the decisions  taken  by  Respondent  No.  2  –  Lokayukta,  the  matters  questioning those decisions which are pending in the High  Court  of Judicature at  Allahabad/Lucknow Bench are to be  disposed of on merits in the light of the above conclusion  upholding  the  Amendment  Act  of  2012.   Accordingly,  the  transfer petitions are disposed of.   

.…….…………………………CJI.                      (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

       ………….…………………………J.                   (RANJAN GOGOI)                                   

………….…………………………J.                  (N.V. RAMANA)                                   

NEW DELHI; APRIL 24, 2014.

30