Case: Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui Vs. State of U.P. &amp; Another

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) 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. 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-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 thefor 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 ofSimilar 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 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 20124) 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 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

Court's reasoning:
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. Theincludes 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. 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.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 mayhave 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 theWith regard to giving effect to the Amendment Act retrospectively, as rightly pointed out by the State, a 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.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 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 isAmong all the contentions/issues raised, the main challenge relates to the validity of U.P. Lokayukta and(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 andAct, 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 onThough 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. 2Lokayukta 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 hisThe 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. Thes 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 ofwith 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. 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.r 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 maybe.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.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 byChapter 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 theassent to a Bill, the consequent Act is the Act of the State Legislature without any distinction between its Houses, as projected by the petitioner. Wehave 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 thepetitioner.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(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 andshall 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 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 andwhether present or future, to ensure effective implementation of the Act. We are also satisfied that the aforesaid extension of the term of Lokayukta andfrom 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.s 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 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