On December 16, 2015, the Supreme Court exercised its power under Article 142 under the Constitution and appointed Justice Virendra Singh as the new lokayukta of Uttar Pradesh. This unusual step by the apex court snowballed several events. The then lokayukta Justice NK Mehrotra had completed his tenure on March 15, 2014. On April 24, 2014, the Supreme Court called upon the UP Government to appoint a new lokayukta in six months. On January 20, 2015, a contempt petition was filed in the Supreme Court, inter alia alleging that no step has been taken by the Government to fill the post. On July 23, the court granted the UP Government 30 days to appoint a lokayukta. On August 22, the court found that a new lokayukta had still not been appointed. Contempt proceedings against the UP Government commenced in the court on December 4. On December 16, the Supreme Court for the first time in its history appointed a lokayukta after criticising the “failure” of the Constitutional authorities of the State to comply with its orders.
On December 19, the Supreme Court asked the State to defer the oath taking ceremony of Justice Virendra Singh as the new lokayukta. It was alleged in the writ petition, which was taken up for urgent hearing, inter alia alleging that the State had played a “fraud” on the the Supreme Court in the case. Sachidanand Gupta, a journalist residing in lucknow, filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court alleging that the Akhilesh Yadav Government “submitted” incorrect facts and this improper foundation compelled the court on December 16 to pass the rare order. A petition was entertained with remarkable speedy judicial action. The matter was taking up on the very same day at 4.30 pm before a Special Bench of Justices Adarsh Kumar Goel and UU lalit and the matter will now subsequently be heard by a Bench where Justice Ranjan Gogoi is a Member, as the order of December 16 was passed by that Bench.
The petition alleges that the UP Government is guilty of “arbitrary and unlawful conduct” in concealing from the court that Justice Virendra Singh’s name had been removed from the list of proposed candidates shortlisted for lokayukta by Chief Minister Yadav. This had been occasioned by reservations expressed by Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court Justice DY Chandrachud. The petitioner further alleges that the Supreme Court was led to believe that Justice (retired) Virendra Singh was the “number 1” candidate for the post and that there was a consensus on this matter between the Chief Minister and the leader of Opposition, while Chief Justice Chandrachud had expressed no opinion. The petitioner contended that the name of Justice Singh was objected to by the Allahabad High Court Chief Justice, after which his name was dropped, and the Chief Minister had assured him that the name would not be pursued further. The petitioner further alleged that the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court did express in his mind regarding the names on the list given by the Chief Minister, but Justice Chandrachud had also given a separate list of five names. Reliable sources say that Chief Justice Chandrachud had written a detailed letter to Governor Ram Naik. The letter explained the entire circumstances, including his objection to the appointment of Justice Singh.
These unusual set of events do not demonstrate a favourable picture of the executive. Worse still is to mislead the apex court. But for the timely intervention of the Supreme Court, an improper appointment was going to be made to a sensitive and high office such as lokayukta.
The Odisha scenario also indicates inaction on the part of the State-level Constitutional authorities to fill up the post of lokpal/lokayukta. The hazards of deciding for the executive coupled with reliance on erroneous material and advice do aggravate the situation. This unusual case also demonstrates that a sensitive and alert judiciary, that too at the highest level, is the saviour of fundamental and other rights. Annoyed and displeased, the Supreme Court appointed a particular person as the lokayukta of the State. Three days later, material reached the court that the court has been misdirected through misrepresentation of facts and through “fraud” on the court. Very same day, the apex court asked the State Government to defer the formal oath taking ceremony of the appointee till January 6, 2016. Constitutional and administrative laws added to the dynamics of the justice delivery system. But for the timely intervention of the apex court, a very awkward situation would have arisen. The outcome of this case will lay down new frontiers of administrative jurisprudence.
The case amply demonstrates the adventurism of a State Government and cautions the courts not to blindly accept any statement on submissions of the Governments. Politics very often clouds their intentions and objectivity is a convenient casualty. The youth of the country have to ponder over the unusual trends and protect their own future by suitable proactive measures. When politics is individual-based and not issue-based, overindulgence in patronage and favours tends to come to centre-stage. The system badly needs cleansing through the effort of the entire society. That certainly concerns us all!
(The writer, a Senior Advocate, is a former All India Service officer, a former diplomat, a former editor, a former President of Orissa High Court Bar Association and a former Advocate General of Odisha.jayantdas@hotmail.com)