9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 1256 - SC - Indian LawsContinuation as Lokayukta after 15.03.2012 - constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012 - HELD THAT - 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, legislators and other public servants in certain cases. The Act came into force on 12.07.1977. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. It is held 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. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012. 2. Whether the Amendment Act was validly passed as a Money Bill. 3. The maintainability of the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 4. The eligibility of Mr. Justice N.K. Mehrotra (retd.) to continue as Lokayukta after the expiration of his term. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012: The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of the Amendment Act, asserting it was ultra vires to the provisions of the Constitution of India. The Amendment Act extended the term of the Lokayukta from six to eight years and allowed the current Lokayukta to continue until a successor was appointed. The court held that the Amendment Act was validly enacted by a competent legislature with legislative intent to ensure effective implementation of the Act. The extension of the term was considered a matter of legislative policy and not merely for the benefit of the incumbent Lokayukta, Justice N.K. Mehrotra (retd.). 2. Whether the Amendment Act was validly passed as a Money Bill: The petitioner argued that the Amendment Act was wrongly introduced as a Money Bill, thus violating Articles 197 and 198 of the Constitution, which require passage by both Houses of the State Legislature. The court noted that Article 199(1) defines a Money Bill and Article 199(3) states that the decision of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly on whether a Bill is a Money Bill is final. The court found that the Bill was indeed a Money Bill, as it dealt with matters related to the Consolidated Fund of the State. The court also emphasized that Article 212 precludes judicial inquiry into the proceedings of the Legislature, thus upholding the Speaker's certification of the Bill as a Money Bill. 3. The maintainability of the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India: The State of Uttar Pradesh contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as there was no violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights. The court examined the petitioner's standing and found that the petitioner had filed the writ petition with oblique motives, acting as a proxy for a political figure against whom the Lokayukta had recommended action on charges of corruption. The court held that the writ petition lacked bona fides and was an outcome of malice and ill-will, thus rendering it non-maintainable. 4. The eligibility of Mr. Justice N.K. Mehrotra (retd.) to continue as Lokayukta after the expiration of his term: The petitioner argued that Justice Mehrotra's continuation as Lokayukta after the expiration of his six-year term was illegal and violated Section 5(3) of the original Act, which prohibits reappointment. The court found that the Amendment Act, which extended the term of the Lokayukta to eight years, was applicable to the sitting Lokayukta from the date of its commencement. Therefore, Justice Mehrotra's continuation in office was deemed lawful under the amended provisions. Conclusion: The court dismissed all the writ petitions and upheld the validity of the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012. The court directed the State to take steps to appoint a new Lokayukta within six months. The appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh was disposed of, and the pending matters questioning the Lokayukta's decisions were to be resolved on merits by the High Court.
|
