1

NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.872 OF 2015
SACHCHIDANAND GUPTA
“SACHCHEY”

...PETITIONER

VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. THROUGH
CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS.

...RESPONDENTS

AND
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.733 OF 2015
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.410 OF 2012
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.3 OF 2016
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.410 OF 2012
J U D G M E N T
RANJAN GOGOI, J.
1.

By our order dated 16th December, 2015 in

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 301 of 2015 we had,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Sukhbir Paul Kaur
Date: 2016.01.28
17:08:02 IST
Reason:

in exercise of our power under Article 142 of
the

Constitution

of

India,

appointed

Justice

Virendra Singh (Retd.) as the Lokayukta of the

 2

State of Uttar Pradesh. Pursuant to the said
order the Hon’ble Governor of Uttar Pradesh had
issued

a

December,

consequential
2015

order

appointing

dated

Justice

18th

Virendra

Singh (Retd.) as the Lokayukta.
2.

This

Writ

Petition

under

Article

32

has

been filed seeking interference with the order
of

the

Hon’ble

Governor

dated

18th

December,

2015 primarily on the ground that this Court
was misled by the State of Uttar Pradesh into
passing the order dated 16th December, 2015 in
W.P.(C)

No.301

of

2015

appointing

Justice

Virendra Singh (Retd.) as the Lokayukta.
3.

The circumstances in which the appointment

of

Justice

Virendra

Singh

(Retd.)

as

the

Lokayukta of the State of Uttar Pradesh was
made by this Court on 16th December, 2015 have
been set out in details in the said order. The
said facts may be recapitulated.
“While deciding Writ Petition No.410
of

2012

and

other

connected

cases

 3

decided
inter

on

April

alia

24,

passed

2014,
the

we

had

following

order :xxx

xxx

xxx

"In the light of the above
discussion,
we
hold
that
Respondent 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 U.P. Lokayukta
and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment)
Act, 2012. However, we direct
the
State
to
take
all
endeavours 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."
xxx

xxx
The

effect

period

from

24th

of

xxx
six

April,

months
2014

with

within

which this Court had desired that the
Lokayukta should be appointed is long
over.
Alleging willful disobedience of
the

said

Contempt

directions
Petition

of

No.70

the
of

Court

2015

was

instituted before this Court which was
disposed of on 23.07.2015 by observing

 4

as hereunder:"The
contempt
petition
is
disposed of on the hope and
expectation
that
the
constitutional
functionaries
entrusted with the duty of
making
appointment
of
Lokayukta will finalize the
matter and take their decision
within a period of thirty days
from today"
In

the

said

order

we

had

also

observed that the above order of the
Court should be brought to the notice
of all the authorities concerned.
The hope and expectation of this
Court expressed in the aforesaid order
dated

23rd

July,

2015

appears

to

be

gone in vain and has not been heeded
to

by

any

of

functionaries
process
the

of

the

constitutional

associated

appointment.

above

with
In

the

fact,

circumstances,

in

another

contempt petition being No.733 of 2015
has

been

filed

before

this

Court

wherein vide order dated 4.12.2015 the
Court had issued notice. The present
writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution was filed on 30th April,
2015 and notice thereon was issued on
2nd July, 2015.

 5

In the aforesaid writ petition a
prayer has been made for a writ or
direction

commanding

Government
new

to

the

immediately

incumbent

as

State

appoint

Lokayukta

a

and

dispense with the services of Justice
N.K.

Mehrotra

(Retd.),

the

present

Lokayukta. Apart from the above, there
is a prayer for initiation of contempt
proceedings
Secretary
Pradesh

against
of

the

and

the

State

other

Chief

of

Uttar

consequential

directions. No response to the notice
issued by this Court as far as back on
2nd July, 2015 has been filed by any of
the contesting parties including the
Chief

Secretary,

though

notice

has

been duly served.
After hearing the writ petition
on

14th

December,

2015,

we

had

permitted the learned Advocate General
of the State, who was present in the
Court, to ensure that the situation is
remedied

and

appointment
passed

on

today.

The

done.

appropriate
of

or

orders

for

the

Lokayukta

are

before

16.12.2015

i.e.

same

has

also

not

been

 6

The
indicate

facts
that

stated
the

above

initial

would

order

of

this Court dated 24th April, 2014 and
the subsequent order dated 23rd July,
2015

in

Contempt

Petition

No.70

of

2015 has gone unheeded. The present is
a case where the Court is confronted
by the failure, if not the refusal of
the

constitutional

functionaries,

to

comply with the repeated orders of the
highest Court of the land. The matter
is deeply regrettable and to say the
least is astonishing.”
4.

The issue that presently confronts the

Court is whether the name of Shri Justice
Virendra Singh (Retd.) which was one of
the five names placed before the Court on
behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh with
the statement that three names including
the name of Shri Justice Virendra Singh
(Retd.) had the concurrence of the Hon'ble
Chief

Minister

and

the

Leader

of

Opposition (the Hon'ble Chief Justice of
the High Court had not expressed his mind

 7

on

any

of

the

said

names)

was

a

misrepresentation on the part of the State
as is now sought to be contended on behalf
of

the

petitioner.

asserted

by

the

It

is

petitioner

specifically
that

in

the

meeting that took place on 15th December,
2015 objections being raised to the name
of Shri Justice Virendra Singh (Retd.) by
the

Hon'ble

Court,

the

Chief
Hon'ble

Justice
Chief

of

the

Minister

High
had

agreed that his name would be dropped from
the panel.
5.

In

this

regard,

we

have

been

taken

through a letter dated 16th December, 2015
of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High
Court to His Excellency the Governor of
Uttar Pradesh wherein the said fact has
been recited and also the basis on which
the

Hon'ble

Chief

Justice

of

the

High

Court had opposed the name of Shri Justice
Virendra Singh (Retd.) has been set out.

 8

6.

From

the

aforesaid

letter

of

the

Hon’ble Chief Justice, it appears that 5
names, mentioned below, were suggested by
the Hon’ble Chief Justice:
(i) Mr.
(ii) Mr.
(iii)Mr.
(iv) Mr.
(v) Mr.
7.

In

Justice
Justice
Justice
Justice
Justice
the

S U Khan
Devendra Pratap Singh
Amar Saran
Shri Kant Tripathi
Sunil Hali

said

letter

it

is

further

stated that there was however no unanimity
on the names proposed by the Hon'ble Chief
Justice
Shri

of

the

Justice

thereafter

High

Virendra

suggested

Court.
Singh
by

The

name

(Retd.)

Hon’ble

of
was

Chief

Minister. The Chief Justice expressed his
reservations as regards the name of Shri
Justice

Virendra

Singh

(Retd.).

Accordingly it was agreed that the said
name would be dropped. Four other names
were

suggested

by

the

Hon'ble

Minister which are as follows:

Chief

 9

(i)

Mr. Justice Zaki Ullah Khan

(ii)

Mr. Justice Sanjay Misra

(iii)

Mr. Justice Kalimullah Khan

(iv)

Mr. Justice Imtiyaz Murtaza

8.

In

the

Justice

letter

it

is

of

also

the

Hon'ble

mentioned

Chief

that

no

agreement could be reached on any of the
aforesaid

names

Minister

had

and
in

the

Hon'ble

these

Chief

circumstances

suggested the name of Shri

Justice A.N.

Mittal, a sitting judge for appointment as
Lokayukta

to

which

the

Hon'ble

Chief

Justice agreed to revert in the evening of
16th December, 2015.

In the

meantime the

order of this Court was passed.
9.

The names that were placed before the

Court

on

16th

December,

2015

are

follows:
(i)

Mr. Justice Virendra Singh

(ii)

Mr. Justice Imtiyaz Murtaza

(iii)

Mr. Justice A.N. Mittal

(iv)

Mr. Justice Sanjay Misra

as

 10

(v)

Out

Mr. Justice Kalimullah Khan

of

the

aforesaid

names,

Serial

Nos. (i),(ii) and (iv) were stated to have
the

consensus

of

the

Hon'ble

Chief

Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.

10. From the letter of the Chief Minister
dated 1st January, 2016 to His Excellency
the

Governor

connection
December,

of

with

Uttar

the

2015

of

Pradesh

in

dated

16th

letter
the

Hon'ble

Chief

Justice of High Court, which letter has
also been placed before us, two lists of
names that were considered on 15th and 16th
December, 2015 have been set out. List-A
consists

of

3

names

whereas

List-B

consists of names of 51 judges of the High
Court

who

had

2015.

List-A

retired
referred

between
to

by

2011
the

and

Chief

Minister in his letter dated 01.01.2016 is
extracted below:–

 11

LIST A
Sr. Applicant
No.

Date
of Present
Application Designation
/Letter
Hon’ble Mr.
28.05.2014
President, State
Justice Virendra
Consumer
Singh
Dispute
Redressal
Commission,
Uttarpradesh
Hon’ble
Justice 02.07.2014
Retired
Zaki Ulla Khan
Hon’ble
Justice 07.11.2014
Retired
Sabha Jeet Yadav

1.

2.
3.

11. Though there appears to be some common
names

in

the

lists

mentioned

in

the

letters of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of
the

High

Minister,

Court
the

and

reaching

the

Hon'ble

of

any

Chief

agreement

between the Chief Minister and the Leader
of

the

Opposition

on

any

of

the

three

names furnished to the Court i.e.(i) Mr.
Justice Virendra Singh; (ii) Mr. Justice
Imtiyaz

Murtaza;

and

(iii)

Mr.

Justice

Sanjay Mishra is not borne out from the
record.

In

para

7

of

the

letter

dated

 12

1.1.2016
though

of

there

the

Hon’ble

is

mention

Chief
of

a

Minister
consensus

between the Chief Minister and the Leader
of the Opposition on some names, details
thereof are not mentioned. However, in the
list laid before this Court three names on
which

there

was

reportedly

an

agreement

between the Chief Minister and the Leader
of the Opposition has been mentioned. Para
7

of

the

said

letter

may

therefore

reproduced below:
“7. It is material to point out
that

the

five

names

of

Hon’ble

Judges were given by the State to
the

Hon’ble

16.12.2005.

Supreme

Court

on

Out of them, on few

names,

there

between

me

were

and

the

consensus
Leader

of

Opposition, Legislative Assembly,
wherein
Justice

the
Mr.

name
Virendra

of

Retired

Singh

was

included, on which Chief Justice
had no consensus.”

be

 13

In fact from para 7, extracted above,
it is clear that the Hon’ble Chief Justice
of the High Court had reservations on the
name

of

(Retd.).

Shri
In

Justice

this

Virendra

regard,

there

Singh
is

a

subsequent letter dated 6th January, 2016
of the Leader of Opposition which clearly
belies

the

fact

that

any

agreement

was

reached on any name between the Hon'ble
Chief

Minister

and

the

Leader

of

Opposition.
12.

In the facts stated above, we are

persuaded

to

appointing

Shri

hold

that

Justice

our

Virendra

order
Singh

(Retd.) as Lokayukta was on the basis of
the statement made on behalf of the State
of Uttar Pradesh which now appears to be
somewhat

inaccurate.

The

picture

that

emanates from the above narration of facts
is hazy, unclear and uncertain and we are
left in serious doubt as to whether the

 14

constitutional/statutory

functionaries

or

at least two of them had, at all, agreed
on

any

name

unfortunate

that

functionaries,
extended

or

names.

It

is

constitutional/statutory

inspite

meetings,

of

prolonged

continued

to

and
have

serious differences on a relatively simple
issue i.e. appointment of the Lokayukta.

13.

However,

subsequent
Chief

we

now

have

reservation

Justice

of

on

of

the

High

record

the

the

Hon'ble

Court

with

regard to the suitability of Shri Justice
Virendra

Singh

(Retd.)

as

Lokayukta

as

expressed in the Hon'ble Chief Justice’s
letter

dated

16th

December,

2015

to

His

Excellency the Governor of Uttar Pradesh.
We

can

only

wish

that

the

above

reservation of the Hon’ble Chief Justice
had been placed before us before we had
passed

our

December,

earlier

2015

in

order

Writ

dated

Petition

16th

(Civil)

 15

No. 301 of 2015 particularly when the High
Court

was

represented

before

us

on

the

said date.
14. In view of the above reservations and
having regard to the fact that this Court
in Justice K.P. Mohapatra versus Sri Ram
Chandra Nayak and others [(2002) 8 SCC 1
(paragraph

12

primacy

the

to

and

16)]

opinion

had
of

accorded

the

Hon'ble

Chief Justice in the consultative process
for

appointment

inclined

to

December,
Justice

of

recall

2015

Sanjay

and

Lokayukta,
our

order

instead

Misra

we

are

dated

16th

appoint

(Retired

Shri

Judge

of

Allahabad High Court) as the Lokayukta of
Uttar

Pradesh.

In

making

the

aforesaid

appointment we have taken note of the fact
that

the

name

of

Justice

Sanjay

Misra

appears in the common list of names that
were discussed as mentioned in the letters
of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High

 16

Court

and

the

Hon'ble

Chief

Minister

referred to above.

15. Consequential orders in terms of the
above

direction

may

be

authority/functionary

issued

without

by

the

delay,

and

compliance report be sent to the Registry
of this Court within a week.
16. With

the

observation,
contempt

aforesaid
the

writ

petitions

as

direction

petition
also

and

and

all

the

other

pending applications are disposed of.
....................,J.
(RANJAN GOGOI)
....................,J.
(PRAFULLA C. PANT)
NEW DELHI
JANUARY 28, 2016

 17
ITEM NO.1A

COURT NO.7

SECTION PIL(W)/X

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

I N D I A

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.872 OF 2015
SACHCHIDANAND GUPTA
“SACHCHEY”

...PETITIONER
VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. THROUGH
CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS.

...RESPONDENTS

WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.733 OF 2015
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.410 OF 2012
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.3 OF 2016
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.410 OF 2012
Date : 28/01/2016

These petitions were called on
for pronouncement of judgment today.

For Petitioner(s)

Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.

Prashant Bhushan, Adv.
Kamini Jaiswal,Adv.
Talha A. Rahman, Adv.
Rohit Kr. Singh, Adv.
Shumaila Altaf, Adv.

Mr. Rajeev Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s)

Mr. Abhinav Mukerji,Adv.
Mr. M. R. Shamshad,Adv.
Mr. Shashank Singh, Adv.
Ms. Harshita Deshwal, Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi pronounced
the judgment of the Bench comprising

His Lordship

and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant.

 18

For

the

reasons

recorded

in

the

non-reportable judgment, we recall our order dated
16th December, 2015 and instead appoint Shri Justice
Sanjay Misra (Retired Judge of Uttar Pradesh).
Consequential orders in terms of the above
direction

may

be

issued

by

the

authority/functionary without delay, and compliance
report be sent to the Registry of this Court within
a week.
With
observation,

the
the

aforesaid
writ

petition

direction
and

the

and

contempt

petitions as also all other pending applications
are disposed of.

(Neetu Khajuria)
Sr.P.A.

(Asha Soni)
Court Master

(Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file.)