SC appoints Lokayukta in UP as consensus eludes CM, CJ and LOP

The search for a new Lokayukta in Uttar Pradesh ended in an unusual manner on Wednesday 16 December with the Supreme Court appointing Justice (retired) Virendra Singh on the post. With this, the nine-year term of the incumbent Justice (retired) NK Mehrotra came to an end. Even though the move itself is unprecedented as the Apex Court exercised its Constitutional power for the first time in making the appointment, the episode marks the inflexibility over the selection of a person as the anti-corruption watchdog in Uttar Pradesh. The selection committee comprising the Chief Minister, Chief Justice of Allahbad High Court D Y Chandrachud and Leader of the Opposition in the state assembly Swami Prasad Maurya met twice in the last two days but to no avail. Justice Mehrotra was appointed as Lokayukta on 16 March, 2006 and his six-year term ended on 15 March, 2012. But on 22 March the state government promulgated an ordinance whereby the Act was amended and the term of the Lokayukta was extended to 8 years effective from 15 March. Even that period ended in March 2014 and since then the Supreme Court had been directing the UP government to find a new person for the post. But the Akhilesh Yadav government, for some reason, showed remarkable disinterest in the issue, preferring to continue with Mehrotra as the ombudsman for as long as possible. Incidentally, the Samajwadi Government was in power in UP during 2006 and 2012. Sources in Lucknow said two meetings were held on Tuesday to arrive at a consensus for the post and there was a possibility that the state government could have come up with a name by mid-day on Wednesday. However, there was no agreement among the three members of the selection panel on any name, and ultimately five names were sent to the Supreme Court as the SC bench asked senior counsel for UP Kapil Sibal to provide the names by 12.30 pm today itself. The Supreme Court’s comments expressing its disapproval of the way constitutional authorities mandated to appoint the ombudsman failed to discharge their responsibilities are among the strongest against any state government in recent times. It not only “deeply regretted” the failure “if not refusal of the constitutional functionaries” to comply with the court’s order, it also said it was not impressed by the explanation given by senior counsel Kapil Sibal appearing for Uttar Pradesh that “serious efforts” were made by the selection panel to decide on a name. Two days ago the Supreme Court had also expressed its disillusionment over the UP government’s inability to select the new Lokayukta, asking why its order had not been complied with. It pointed out that “It seems, each one of you have your own agenda… you make the appointment by Wednesday,” it had said. [caption id=“attachment_2549012” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Lokayukta office, Uttar Pradesh. Representational Image. Image courtesy: Lokayukta UP website[/caption] On 22 March, 2012, the then Uttar Pradesh Governor BL Joshi had approved the controversial proposal of the Samajwadi Party government to amend the UP Lokayukta Act 1977 that sought to extend the Lokayukta’s term by two years. It was for the first time that the Lokayukta Act had been amended in 35 years of its history. Following this approval, the UP Lokayukta (Amendment Ordinance) 2012 was promulgated on 27 March, 2012. There is no state in the country which has the tenure of a Lokayukta fixed at 8 years. However, the matter was taken up in the form of a petition in the Supreme Court and it had on April 24 last year upheld the constitutional validity of amendment in UP Lokayukta Act for fixing eight-year tenure for the Lokayukta. In August this year, the Lokayukta appointment issue had hit the headlines again when the Uttar Pradesh Governor Ram Naik returned the file sent by the state government recommending the name of Justice Raveendra Singh Yadav for the post. However, Governor Naik returned it with some queries. The file was again sent with the State Government’s response but the Governor sent it back the same day, saying the response was not satisfactory. He reportedly urged Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav to follow the proper procedure for selecting the Lokayukta. The Raj Bhawan had said that as per the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukt and UP-Lokayukt Act 1975, a panel comprising Chief Justice of the High Court, leader of opposition and Chief Minister should decide on names for the post and this procedure was not followed. “Neither such panel was formed nor was any meeting held for selection of the Lokayukta,” the Governor said while returning the file again. It is reported that the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court DY Chandrachud had some reservations on this name. Interestingly, the State Government had also mulled to do away with the clause that sought consultation among the three for selecting a name for the Lokayukta’s post. Later, with no consensus over his name, Yadav had opted out of the race for the key post by sending a letter to the Chief Minister. The state president of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP Laxmikant Bajpai said that the Supreme Court’s unprecedented action and comments had caused a constitutional crisis in the state, and he urged the Governor to dismiss the Akhilesh government. He said it was shameful that the Apex Court had to decide on the name despite the existence of the legislature in Uttar Pradesh “The recommendations of inquiry against several Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) have been pending at the Lokayukta’s level, and it appears that the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition were together in this issue.” The Aam Aadmi party’s state spokesman Vaibhav Maheshwari said that it was strange that the SP government was so keen on retaining Justice Mehrotr as the Lokayukta. “The Akhilesh government kept trying to appoint a person of its choice on the post probably to ensure that this institution remained ineffective,” he said. Nutan Thakur, wife of suspended IPS officer Amitabh Thakur, while welcoming the Supreme Court move alleged that the former Lokayukta Justice Mehrotra “had been misusing his authority to save corrupt SP MLAs and ministers and to frame innocent people.”