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