MOHD. SAEED SIDDIQUI versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

MOHD. SAEED SIDDIQUI versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012 is constitutionally valid; its passage as a Money Bill is not open to judicial review, and the extension of the Lokayukta's term to eight years applies to respondent no. 2; he holds office under valid law. The State must proceed to appoint a new Lokayukta as per the Act.

Parties
Petitioner: Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui; Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh; Respondent: Mr. Justice N.K. Mehrotra (retd.)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
24 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) / Final Judgment / Disposal on Merits
Outcome
Writ petitions dismissed; appeal and transfer petitions disposed of; direction to appoint new Lokayukta as per Act.
Legal Topics
Validity of Money Bills, Judicial Review of Legislative Procedure, Appointment and Term of Lokayukta, Legislative Privilege
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Legislative Procedure Validity of Money Bills Judicial Review of Legislative Procedure Appointment and Term of Lokayukta Legislative Privilege

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui

Petitioner

State of Uttar Pradesh

Respondent

Mr. Justice N.K. Mehrotra (retd.)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) / Final Judgment / Disposal on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012 is constitutionally valid
  2. 2 Whether the designation of the Amendment Act as a Money Bill was valid
  3. 3 Whether the extension of the term of Lokayukta was proper under the amended law

Ratio Decidendi

The Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012 is constitutionally valid; its passage as a Money Bill is not open to judicial review, and the extension of the Lokayukta's term to eight years applies to respondent no. 2; he holds office under valid law. The State must proceed to appoint a new Lokayukta as per the Act.

Court Disposition

Writ petitions dismissed; appeal and transfer petitions disposed of; direction to appoint new Lokayukta as per Act.

Orders

  • Respondent No. 2 is duly holding the office of Lokayukta under valid law.
  • State is directed to endeavor to select a new Lokayukta as per the Act, preferably within six months.