The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that it was open to recall its order appointing Justice (Retd) Virendra Singh as the lokayukta of Uttar Pradesh, saying it was “misled” by the State Government about the consent of the Allahabad High Court Chief Justice to the former judge’s name for the post.
The Allahabad HC Chief Justice DY Chandrachud had cited lack of integrity as a ground to object the appointment of Justice (Retd) Virendra Singh following which in the last meeting held between the three constitutional functionaries — Chief Justice, Chief Minister and leader of Opposition in UP Assembly —on December 16 at 9.30 am, it was agreed to drop the name. But later in the day, the list of five names submitted to the Supreme Court figured Virendra Singh’s name at the top.
Stating this on behalf of the Allahabad HC, senior advocate TR Andhyarujina assisted by advocate Sunny Chaudhary informed the Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and PC Pant that the State Government was duty-bound to present the correct facts, which it failed to do. The Bench said, “They (State) have misled us and we will deal with them. But procedure under the statute had failed.”
The Bench pointed out that the order came to be passed due to the “failure” of constitutional authorities to appoint lokayukta. “What is unfortunate is that nothing happened for 20 months (April 2014-December 2015). You were dialoguing and the moment we pass orders, you object. You fix a meeting on the evening of December 16, knowing fully well that we will pass orders that day. This is the respect you hold for our orders.”
At one time during the hearing, it seemed things were getting out of hands as the apex Bench wished to be “satisfied” on what material had the High Court to suggest their choice of lokayukta lacked integrity. “Unless compelling reasons are there shocking our conscience, we will not be compelled to change our order,” the Bench said.
But Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar pointed out to the court that the question was about the candidate selected and whether he was fit for the post in view of the CJ’s objection.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan also suggested that the proper course was to allow the constitutional functionaries to decide on another name. The Bench said, “Even if we are to recall our order we will not send it to the constitutional functionaries. For 20 months they struggled to find a name and failed.”