LexMOHD. SAEED SIDDIQUI versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
[2014] 5 S.C.R. 580
. MOHD. SAEED SIDDIQUI
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 41 O of 2012)
APRIL 24, 2014.
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI., RANJAN GOGOi AND
N.V. RAMANA, JJ.]
Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokay{,ktas Act, 1975:
C s.5(1), 5(3) - Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas
(Amendment) Act, 2012 -Respondent no.2 was appointed as
a Lokayukta under 1975 Act - The term of respondent no.2
expired on 15.03.2012 after the completion of the period of
six years under the provisions of sub-section (1) of s.5 - The ,
D Amendment Act 2012 was enacted and the term of Lokayukta
and Up-Lokayukta was increased from six years to eight years
or till his successor enters upon his office - Writ petition
challenging continuance of respondent no. 2 as Lokayukta
after 15.03.2012 - Held: The materials placed clearly showed
E
that the Amendment Act 2012 was 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 -
The
said extension of the term of Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta
F
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 -
Thus,
respondent No. 2 duly held the office of Lokayukta under a
valid law enacted by the competent legislature - However, the
G
State is directed to take all endeavors for selecting the new
incumbent for the office of Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas as
per the provisions of the Act.
Legislation: Bill -
Writ petition challenging the
constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-
H
580
MOHD. SAEED SIDDIQUI v. STATE OF U.P.
581
Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012 on the ground that the A
Bill that led to the enactment of the Amendment Act 2012 was
passed as a Money Bill in violation of Articles 197 and 198
of the Constitution of India which should have been passed
B
by both the Houses, viz. UP. Legislative Assembly and UP.
Legislative Council and was wrongly passed only by the UP.
Legislative Assembly - Held: Question whether a Bill is
Money Bill or not can be raised only in State Legislature
Assembly by member thereof when Bill is pending in State
Legislature and before it becomes an Act - There is no rule
that if Bill in an Original Act was not Money Bill no subsequent c
Bill for amendment of original Act can be Money Bill - Even
in case of infirmity in procedure in enactment of a statute,
matter of procedure do not render the statute invalid to which
assent is given by the President or Governor, as the case
may be.
Administrative law: Judicial review - Proceedings of State
Legislature and decision of Speaker - Scope of Judicial
review - Discussed.
D
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 212 - Decision of E
Speaker - Held: If the Speaker of Legislature Assembly
decides that the Bill in question is Money Bill then such
decision cannot be disputed nor such procedure of State
Legislature be questioned.
Respondent no. 2 was appointed as Lokayukta for
F
the State of Uttar Pradesh on 16.03.2006 under the Uttar
Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975.
Section 5(1) of the Act provided 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)
G
provided 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.
H
582
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 5 S.C.R.
A Respondent No. 2 completed his term of six years on
15.03.2012. 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
B Pradesh for assent. However, the same did not receive
the assent of the Governor. 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
c effectfrom 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. Subsequently, State of Uttar Pradesh enacted
the AmenExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.