Holding

The Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up‑Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012 is a validly enacted law, and the sitting Lokayukta may continue in office under its extended eight‑year term.

Summary

Justice N.K. Mehrotra (retd.) was appointed Lokayukta of Uttar Pradesh in 2006 for a six‑year term that expired on 15‑03‑2012. The State amended the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up‑Lokayuktas Act, 1975 by the 2012 Amendment Act, extending the term to eight years and applying it retrospectively to the sitting Lokayukta. The petitioner challenged the amendment on two grounds: that the amendment was passed as a Money Bill without the required passage by both Houses, violating Articles 197‑199, and that the amendment was ultra‑vires, rendering the Lokayukta’s continuance illegal. The Court held that the amendment was validly enacted, that the Speaker’s certification of the Bill as a Money Bill is final, and that procedural irregularities do not invalidate an Act that has received the Governor’s assent. Consequently, the sitting Lokayukta may lawfully continue under the extended term, and the State was directed to appoint a successor within six months. All writ petitions and the appeal were dismissed.

Issues considered

The constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up‑Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012.
Whether the Amendment Act was correctly classified and passed as a Money Bill under Article 199.
Whether procedural irregularities in the passage of the Amendment Act render it void under Articles 197‑199 and 212.
Whether the extension of the Lokayukta’s term to eight years, applied retrospectively, is permissible.

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up‑Lokayuktas Act, 1975s. 5(1), s. 5(3)
Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up‑Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012s. 5(1) (amended), s. 5(3) (amended)

Subjects

LokayuktaTerm extensionMoney BillLegislative procedureArticle 212Article 199Constitutional validityQuo warranto

Judgment

[2014] 5 S.C.R. 580

A . MOHD. SAEED SIDDIQUI
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 41 O of 2012)

APRIL 24, 2014.
B
[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
by both the Houses, viz. UP. Legislative Assembly and UP.
Legislative Council and was wrongly passed only by the UP. B
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.
D
Administrative law: Judicial review - Proceedings of State
Legislature and decision of Speaker - Scope of Judicial
review - Discussed.

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 Amendment Act which receivec! the assent of the
0 Governor on 06.07.2012. By the said Amendment Act, the
term of the U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta was
extended from s~-x years to eight years or till the
successor enters upon his ~ffice. The said Amendment
Act also sought.to limit the ineligibility of the Lokayuktas'
E or Up-Lokayuktas' for further appointment under the
State 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
The challenge in these matters was regarding the
constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and
Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012 and the
continuance of respondent no. 2 as Lokayukta after
G 15.03.2012. The main apprehension of the petitioner was
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
H
MOHD. SAEED SIDDIQUI v. STATE OF U.P. 583

Assembly and U.P. Legislative Council and was wrongly A
passed only by the U.P. Legislative Assembly.
'
Disposing of the writ petitions and the appeal, the
Court

HELD: 1. Respondent no.2 was appointed as a B
Lokayukta under the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-
Lokayuktas Act, 1975. Since 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
Section 5 of the said Act and ne-ctE!ciSTon was taken for C
the appointment of another person as the Lokayukta and
also taking note of the fact that since the decision to
appoint another person would take time, it was decided
to amend the said Act to provide for increasing the term
of Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta from six years to eight D
years or till his successor ente~s-upon his office. The
materials placed clearly showed that the Amendment Act
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 E
effective implementation of the Act. The said ex.tension
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. [Paras F
27, 41) [596-C-E; 604-F-H]

2. Article 212 of the Constitution makes it clear that
the finality of the decision of the Speaker and the
proceedings of the State Legislature being important
. privilege of the State Leg~slature, viz., freedom of speech, G
debate and proceedings1are 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 instant case
H
584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.

A 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
B passed by the House. 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
c Legislatures and of the members and committees thereof.
[Para 33] [602-B-E]

2. In terms of Article 199(3), the decision of the Speaker
of the Legislative Assembly that the Bill in question is a
Money Bill is final and the said decision cannot be disputed
D nor can the procedure of State Legislature be questioned
by virtue of Article 212. 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
E invalid an Act to which assent has been given to by the
President or the Governor, as the case may be. 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
F and before it becomes an Act. In the instant case no such
question was ever raised by anyone. [Paras 34, 35, 37]
[602-F-H; 603:A, E-F]
Raja Ram Pal vs. Hon'ble Speaker Lok Sabha and Ors.
G (2007) 3 sec 184: 2001 (1) SCR 317; M.S.M. Sharma vs.
Shree Krishna Sinha AIR 1960 SC 1186; Mangalore Ganesh
Beedi Works vs. State of Mysore and Anr. AIR 1963 SC 589:
1963 Suppl. SCR 275; K. Kamaraja Nadar vs. Kunju
Thevar AIR 1958 SC 687: 1959 SCR 583 - relied. on.

H
MOHD. SAEED SIDDIQUI v. STATE OF U.P. 585

3. Chapter Ill of Part VI of the Constitution deals with A
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 B
Act of the State Legislature without any distinction
between its Houses. There was no infirmity in passing of
the· Bill and the enactment of the Amendment Act, as
claimed by the petitioner.• It was claimed that the
Amendment Act could not have been enacted by passing C
the Bill as a Money Bill because the original Act was not
enacted by passing the Bill as a Money Bill. 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. The Act was D
amended ea,rHer 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. E
Up-Lokayukta shall be six years instead of five years.
[Paras 39, 40) [603-H; 604-A-D]

4. With regard to giving effect to the Amendment Act
retrospectively, a deeming clause/legal fiction must be
given full effect and shall be carried to its logical F
conclusion. The effect of a legal fiction is that a position
which otherwise would not obtain is deemed to obtain
under those circumstances. [Para 41) [604-E-F]
5. Respondent No. 2 is duly holding the office of G
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, the State is directed to take all H
586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.

A endeavors for selecting the new incumbent for the office
of Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas as per the provisions
of the Act. [Para 43] [605-C-D]
Case Law Reference:
B 2007 (1) SCR 317 Relied on Para 34
AIR 1960 SC 1186 Relied on Para 36
1963 Suppl. SCR 275 Relied on Para 36
/
c 1959 SCR 583 Relied on Para 41

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India.

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 410 of 2012.
D
WITH

W.P. (C) No. 289 OF 2013, 228 of 2012, Civil Appe~I No. 4853
of 2014, T.C.(C) NO. 74 of 2013, 1228 & 1230 of 2012, 1248
& 1250 of 2012, 1425 of 2012. 1412-1413 of 2012.
6
Ashok H. Desai, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, ·K.K.
' Venugopal, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Basava Prabhu Patil, S.B.
Sanyal, Meenakshi Arora, Gaurav Bhatia, Ravi Prakash
Mehrotra, Vibhu Tiwari, Abhinav K. Malik, Prerna Kumari, Kabir
F Dixit, Rajeev Singh, Praka~h Kumar Singh, Vijaya Lakshmi,
Suruchii Aggarwal, Rajeev Singh, Ankur Talwar, Nikhil Nayyar,
Ambuj Agrawal, Akanksha, Samir Ali Khan, K.K. Mohan, Dr.
Rajeev Sharma, Chandra Sekhar, Qharmendra Sharma, S.K.
Dey, Manjusha Wadhwa, Tulika Prakash, Akram, Rameshwar
G Prasad Goyal, Omkar Shrivastava for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

P.SATHASIVAM, CJI.

H . Writ Petition (Cl No. 410 of 2012
MOHD. SAEED SIDDIQUI v. STATE OF U.P. 587
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.] .
1. The above writ petition, under A1 c1cle 32 of the A
Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner seeking a.
writ of quo warranto against Mr. Justice N.K. Mehrot~a (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 B
Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act,
2012 (for short "the Amendment Act") to the extenfbeing ultra
vires to the provisions of the Constitution of India.

2. Brief facts:
c
(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").
D
(b) Section 5( 1) of the Act provides that the term for which
Lokayukta sball 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
~e ineligible for further appointment, whether as a Lokayukta E
orUp-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 F
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 G
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
H
588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.

A 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
8 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 the Lokayuktas' or Up-Lokayuktas' for
C. 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, onJhe date of commencement of the said
ordinance, i.e., 15.03.2012.

D (D 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
, E 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 petition~. viz., T. P. (C) Nos. 1228 & 1230 of
2012, T.P. (C) Nos. 1248 & 1250 of 2012, T.P. (C) No. 1425
F 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.
·~
G 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
H Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24905
MOHD. SAEED SIDDIQUI v. STATE OF U.P. 589
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJl.J

of 2012 whereby the High Court, while allowing the amendment A
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 ·
8
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 C
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 D
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 E
the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 228 and 410 of2012, 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. F

Contentions:

10. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner, submitted that, by way of the Amendment Act, the
State of U.P. has, in substance and effect, reappointed Justice G
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. H
590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.

·A 11. Mr. VeniJgopal further submitted that by passing the
Amendment Act, ~he 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
8 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
C not even passed by the State Legislature in accordance with
the provisions of the Constitution of India and is, thus, a mere
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
D 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
E violative of Article 200 of the Constitution of India.

t 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
F 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
G ·a fair and candid statement. The petitioner has filed the writ
petition as a proxy of Shri 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,
H
MOHD. SAEED SIDDIQUI v. STATE OF U~P. . - 591
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui, was the agent/representative (pairokar) A
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 B
motives, is questioning the valid legislative and executive
actions. The writ petition, which has been filed un_der the guise
of redressing a public grievance, is lacking in bona tides and
is an outcome of malice and ill~will, which the petitioner nurses
against Respondent No. 2 for making the reports specifically C
those against Shri Naseemuddin Siddiqui. In the present writ
petition as also in his earlier wtit petition, the petitioner has
mad~ yet another collateral attack by questioning the. title of
Respondent No. 2 to the office of Lokayukta in order to stall
the action/enquiry in respect of the grave charges of corruption D
tliat has been ordered pursuant to the reports of Respondent
No, 2.

1?. Besides, learned senior counsel for the State
submitted that the petitioner has made a collateral attack by E
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 tbat very law under which the Respondent No. 2 is holding
the said office, which is .impermissible under the settled law. It F
. is the stand of the State that in a writ of quo warranto, while
enqµiring by what authority a person holds a public office, it is
imper'missible 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 G
public office, but the \lalidity 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.

·1s. Mr. Desai also submitted that the Bill in question was H
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.

A 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 11ot by
B both the Houses, is mis9onceived. 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
C 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.

D 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
submitted that the real purpose of filing the writ petition and other
connected matters is to stall action on the reports of'Respondent
E No. 2 in respect of grave charges of corruption aga'inst 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 petitfoner is a
proxy of Shri Naseemuddin Siddiqui. Further, both ~hri
F 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
G 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·
H Amendment Act, which has been duly enacted by the competent
MOHD. SAEED SIDDIQUJ v. STATE OF U.P. 593
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
legislature. It was urged that the contentions of the petitioner A
regarding Money Bill is baseless and pointed out that the earlier
two ame.ndments to the Act in the year 1981 and 1988 were
also.by way of Money Bills, which is concealed by the petitioner.
Further, itwas subm(tted that the finality of the Speaker's
decision and the legislative process cannot be challenged in · B
a Court of law.

21. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and
perused alt the _relevant materials.

Discussion: c
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 D
provisions. The State of U.P. has brought an Act called the U.P.
Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 (U.P. Act 42of1975). ·
The s9id Act was enacted in order to make provision for
appointment and functions of certain authorities for the
_i~v_estigation on grievances and elections against Ministers, E ·,
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 F
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:
G
"'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 H
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 5 S.C.R.

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-
B (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
c 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 thatwhere the Speaker of the Legislative
D
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
other member of the Opposition in the Legislative
E
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
F subscribe before the Governor or some pers9n 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
G
the purpose of convenient disposal of investigations undet
this Act, the Lokayukta any issue such general or special
direction as he may consider necessary to the Up-
Lokayukta:
H · Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be construed .
MOHD. SAEED SIDDIQUI v. STATE OFU.P. 595
[P.· SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
. to authorize the Lokayukta to question any finding A
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
read& as under:
B
"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 c
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 D
office ;

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

xxx xxx xxx E

(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 F
· 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- G
Lokayuktas such salaries as are specified in the Second
Schedule."

26. Section 20A speaks about salary and allowances
which reads as under:
H
596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 5 S.C.R.

A "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
B 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
C 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
D person as the Lokayukta and also taking note of the fact that
since the decision to appoint another person would take time,
it has been decided to amend the said Act to provide for
increasing the term of Lokayukta anEf Up-Lokayukta from six
years to eight years or till his successor enters upon his office.
E 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
F 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:
G
"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.-
H
MOHD. SAEED SIDDIQUI v. STATE OF U.P. 597
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
(a) for sub-section (1) the following sub-section shall be A
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:
8

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

(a) the Lokayukta or an Up-Lokayukta may, by writing
under his hand addressed to the Governor, resign his
office:
D
(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 E
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"
F
(c) After sub-sectiqn (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 G
the case may be, on the date of commencement of the said
Act." .

Amendment of Section 13
H
598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.

"(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
B 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
c of the State."

Amendment of Section 20-A

"For section 20-A of the principal Act, the following section
shall be substituted, namely:-
D
"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
E 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."

F 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:
G
"Statement of objects and reasons:-

The Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act,
1975 (U.P. Act no. 42of1'975) has been enacted to make
provision for the appointment and functions of certain
H authorities for the investigation grievances and allegations
MOHD. SAEED SIDDIQUI v. STATE OF U.P. 599
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.] .
against minister, Legislators and other public seNants in A
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 B
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 C
appoint another person would take time, it has been
decided to amend the said Act to provide for increasing
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
0
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. ·
E
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." F

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 pa'Ssed by Respondent No.
2 - Lokayukta in respect of former Ministers and persons G
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 l:.okayukta even after
expiry of his term. '

30. The main apprehension of the petitioner is that the Bill H
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.

A that led to the enactment of the Amendment Act was passed
as a Money Bill in violation of Articles 197 and 19.8 of the
Constitution of India which should have been passed by both
the Houses, viz., U.P. Legislative Assembly and U.P.
Legislative Council and was wrongly passed only by the U.P.
B 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
C judgment.

31. Article 199 ofthe Constitution defines "Money Bills",
which reads as under:

"199 - Definition of "Money Bills"
D \
(1) For the purposes of tnis 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
E 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
F be unqertaken 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;

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

(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; \
H
MOHD. SAEED SIDDIQUI v. STATE OF U.P. 601
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
(f) the receipt of money on account of the Consolidated A
· 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). B

(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, C
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 D
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, E
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: F
"212 - Courts not to inquire into proceedings of the
Legislature

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

(2) No officer or member of the Legislature of a State in
• wryom powers are veste_d by or under this Constitution for
~egulating procedure or the conduct of business, 'Or for H
602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
C 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
D 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 Leg.islatures and of the members and committees
E 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
F 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 sec 184, it has been held that the proceedings which may
G 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
H procedures do not render invalid an Act to which assent has
MOHD. SAEED SIDDIQUI ii. STATE OF U.P. 603
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
been given to by the President or the Governor, as the case A
,may be.
I .
I , 't·~. ,_ *~·\, . -· ··..• . ,,..._

~, ~ 36: In tlie,. case of M,.S: M. Sharma vs. Shree Krishna Sinha
AIR .• 196'Q:~G"1186 and Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works vs.
State of MVS'bre and Another Al R 1963 SC 589, the B
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 C
255 lays down that the requirements as to recommendation and
previq~s 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 tliat the procedure laid down by the law has not been D
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 E
nol 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 F
petitione~r has· also raised· another contentio11,that'the Bill was
pa.ssed. only by the Legislative Asse!!J,gly and not by both the
Houses. In other words,.accon:lif)g:to him, it was not passed
by the Legislative Council and, therefore, the Amendment Act
is .t!ad. ·- · G
~4~
... . 39. Chapter Ill o(PartVI of the Constitution deals with the
"
State Legislature. ~iti"cle,. 168 relates to constitution of .
Legislatures in State_s. !he.said Article makes it clear that the
S,tate Legislature consists of the Governor, the Legislative H
604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R. .

A 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
projected by the petitioner. We have also gone through the
original records placed by the State and we are satisfied that
B there is no infirmity in passing of the.Sill 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,
C 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 subseq_uent
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,
D 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.

E 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 obseNed in K. Kamaraja Nadar
vs. Kunju Thevar AIR 1958 SC 687, the effect ofa legal fiction
F 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
G 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.
H
MOHD. SAEED·SIDDIQUI v. STATE OF U.P. 605
·[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]

42. As discussed above, the decision of the Speaker of A
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 B
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 petiti9ner against the ·passing of the said Bill by the
Legislative Assembly alone is unacceptable. C

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 D
(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.
E
44. Under these circumstances, all the writ petitions filed
under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia before this Court
'are dismissed. The appeal filed by the State of U.P. and the
T.C.(C) No. 74 of 2013 are disposed of on the above terms.
lhasrnuch as we have not gone into the merit of the decisions F
t~ken 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 G
p~titions are disposed of.

.Devika Gujral Petitions & Appeal disposed of.