“(5-b) After the investigation of any allegation under this Act, if the Lokayukta or the Up-Lokayukta is satisfied that such investigation has resulted in injustice or caused defamation to the concerned public servants, he may on their application, award compensation recording reasons therefore not exceeding the maximum amount of the cost, out of the cost as imposed on the complainant under sub- section (5-a) to such public servant, who has suffered any loss by reason of injustice or defamation, and such compensation shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State.”
Amendment of Section 20-A “For section 20-A of the principal Act, the following section shall be substituted, namely:- “20-A. It is hereby declared that the salary, allowances and the pensions payable to or in respect of the Lokayukta or the Up-Lokayuktas, the expenditure relating to their staff and office and the amount of compensation awarded to the Public Servant under sub-section (5-b) of section 13 by reason of injustice or defamation and other expenditure, in respect of implementation of the provisions of this Act, shall be an expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State.”
28.We have already noted the object of bringing the ordinance and the Act for amendment of certain provisions. In order to further understand the intention of the Government for bringing such amendment, it is useful to refer the statement of “objects and reasons”, which is as under: “Statement of objects and reasons:- The Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 (U.P. Act no. 42 of 1`975) has been enacted to make provision for the appointment and functions of certain authorities for the investigation grievances and allegations against minister, Legislators and other public servants in certain cases. Under the said Act Shri Narendra Kishor Mehrotra was appointed as Lokayukta vide notification no. 40 Lo.Aa/39-4-2006-15(5) 2006, dated March 9, 2006 from the date he resumes office. Shri Mehrotra resumed his office after taking oath on March 16, 2006. The term of Shri Mehrotra as such was expired on March 15, 2012 after the completion of the period of six years under the then provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the said Act and no decision had been taken for the appointment of another person as the Lokayukta. Since the decision to appoint another person would take time, it has been decided to amend the said Act to provide for increasing the term of Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas from six years to eight years or till his successor enters upon his office, to limit the ineligibility of the Lokayukta or Up-Lokayuktas for further appointment under the Government of Uttar Pradesh only on ceasing to hold office as such and for making the said provisions applicable to the sitting Lokayukta or UP-Lokayuktas as the case may be, on March 15, 2012.
Since the State Legislature was not in session and immediate Legislative action was necessary, the Uttar Pradehs Lokayukta or Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Ordinance, 2012 (U.P. Ordinance No. 1 of 2012) was promulgated by the Governor on March 22, 2012.”
29.Though elaborate arguments have been made by Mr. K.K. Venugopal as well as Mr. Desai about the merits of the various recommendations/orders passed by Respondent No. 2 - Lokayukta in respect of former Ministers and persons connected with the government in these matters, we are primarily concerned about the validity of the Amendment Act and continuance of Respondent No. 2 as Lokayukta even after expiry of his term.JUDGMENT
30.The main apprehension of the petitioner is that the Bill that led to the enactment of the Amendment Act was passed as a Money Bill in violation of Articles 197 and 198 of the Constitution of India which should have been passed by both the Houses, viz., U.P. Legislative Assembly and U.P. Legislative Council and was wrongly passed only by the U.P. Legislative Assembly. During the course of hearing, Mr. Desai, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of U.P., placed the original records pertaining to the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly, decision of the Speaker as well as the Governor, which we are going to discuss in the later part of our judgment.
31.Article 199 of the Constitution defines “Money Bills”, which reads as under: “199 - Definition of "Money Bills" (1) For the purposes of this Chapter, a Bill shall be deemed to be a Money Bill if it contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following matters, namely:-- (a) the imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax; (b) the regulation of the borrowing of money or the giving of any guarantee by the State, or the amendment of the law with respect to any financial obligations undertaken or to be undertaken by the State; (c) the custody of the Consolidated Fund or the Contingency Fund of the State, the payment of moneys into or the withdrawal of moneys from any such Fund; (d) the appropriation of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund of the State; (e) the declaring of any expenditure to be expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State, or the increasing of the amount of any such expenditure; (f) the receipt of money on account of the Consolidated Fund of the State or the public account of the State or the custody or issue of such money; or (g) any matter incidental to any of the matters specified in sub-clauses (a) to (f).
(2) A Bill shall not be deemed to be a Money Bill by reason only that it provides for the imposition of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the demand or payment of fees for licences or fees for services rendered, or by reason that it provides for the imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax by any local authority or body for local purposes.
(3) If any question arises whether a Bill introduced in the Legislature of a State which has a Legislative Council is a Money Bill or not, the decision of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of such State thereon shall be final. (4) There shall be endorsed on every Money Bill when it is transmitted to the Legislative Council under article 198, and when it is presented to the Governor for assent under article 200, the certificate of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly signed by him that it is a Money Bill.”
32.It is also useful to refer Article 212 which reads as under: “212 - Courts not to inquire into proceedings of the Legislature (1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislature of a State shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.
(2) No officer or member of the Legislature of a State in whom powers are vested by or under this Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order, in the Legislature shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers.”
33.The above provisions make it clear that the finality of the decision of the Speaker and the proceedings of the State Legislature being important privilege of the State Legislature, viz., freedom of speech, debate and proceedings are not to be inquired by the Courts. The “proceeding of the Legislature” includes everything said or done in either House in the transaction of the Parliamentary Business, which in the present case is enactment of the Amendment Act. Further, Article 212 precludes the Courts from interfering with the presentation of a Bill for assent to the Governor on the ground of non-compliance with the procedure for passing Bills, or from otherwise questioning the Bills passed by the House. To put it clear, proceedings inside the Legislature cannot be called into question on the ground that they have not been carried on in accordance with the Rules of Business. This is also evident from Article 194 which speaks about the powers, privileges of the House of Legislatures and of the members and committees thereof.
34.We have already quoted Article 199. In terms of Article 199(3), the decision of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly that the Bill in question was a Money Bill is final and the said decision cannot be disputed nor can the procedure of State Legislature be questioned by virtue of Article 212. We are conscious of the fact that in the decision of this Court in Raja Ram Pal vs. Hon’ble Speaker Lok Sabha and Others (2007) 3 SCC 184, it has been held that the proceedings which may be tainted on account of substantive or gross irregularity or unconstitutionality are not protected from judicial scrutiny.
35.Even if it is established that there was some infirmity in the procedure in the enactment of the Amendment Act, in terms of Article 255 of the Constitution the matters of procedures do not render invalid an Act to which assent has been given to by the President or the Governor, as the case may be.
36.In the case of M.S.M. Sharma vs. Shree Krishna Sinha AIR 1960 SC 1186 and Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works vs. State of Mysore and Another AIR 1963 SC 589, the Constitution Benches of this Court held that (i) the validity of an Act cannot be challenged on the ground that it offends Articles 197 to 199 and the procedure laid down in Article 202; (ii) Article 212 prohibits the validity of any proceedings in a Legislature of a State from being called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure; and (iii) Article 255 lays down that the requirements as to recommendation and previous sanction are to be regarded as a matter of procedure only. It is further held that the validity of the proceedings inside the Legislature of a State cannot be called in question on the allegation that the procedure laid down by the law has not been strictly followed and that no Court can go into those questions which are within the special jurisdiction of the Legislature itself, which has the power to conduct its own business.
37.Besides, the question whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not can be raised only in the State Legislative Assembly by a member thereof when the Bill is pending in the State Legislature and before it becomes an Act. It is brought to our notice that in the instant case no such question was ever raised by anyone.
38.Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also raised another contention that the Bill was passed only by the Legislative Assembly and not by both the Houses. In other words, according to him, it was not passed by the Legislative Council and, therefore, the Amendment Act is bad.
39.Chapter III of JUDGMENTPart VI of the Constitution deals with the State Legislature. Article 168 relates to constitution of Legislatures in States. The said Article makes it clear that the State Legislature consists of the Governor, the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council. After the Governor’s assent to a Bill, the consequent Act is the Act of the State Legislature without any distinction between its Houses, as projected by the petitioner. We have also gone through the original records placed by the State and we are satisfied that there is no infirmity in passing of the Bill and the enactment of the Amendment Act, as claimed by the petitioner.
40.Though it is claimed that the Amendment Act could not have been enacted by passing the Bill as a Money Bill because the Act was not enacted by passing the Bill as a Money Bill, as rightly pointed out, there is no such rule that if the Bill in a case of an original Act was not a Money Bill, no subsequent Bill for amendment of the original Act can be a Money Bill. It is brought to our notice that the Act has been amended earlier by the U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 1988 and the same was enacted by passing the Money JUDGMENTBill. By the said Amendment Act of 1988, Section 5(1) of the Act was amended to provide that the term of the Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta shall be six years instead of five years.
41.With regard to giving effect to the Amendment Act retrospectively, as rightly pointed out by the State, a deeming clause/legal fiction must be given full effect and shall be carried to its logical conclusion. As observed in K. Kamaraja Nadar vs. Kunju Thevar AIR 1958 SC 687, the effect of a legal fiction is that a position which otherwise would not obtain is deemed to obtain under those circumstances. The materials placed clearly show that the Amendment Act has been enacted by a competent legislature with legislative intent to provide a term of eight years to Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta, whether present or future, to ensure effective implementation of the Act. We are also satisfied that the aforesaid extension of the term of Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta from six years to eight years is a matter of legislative policy and it cannot be narrowed down by saying that the same was enacted only for the benefit of JUDGMENT Respondent No. 2.
42.As discussed above, the decision of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly that the Bill in question was a Money Bill is final and the said decision cannot be disputed nor can the procedure of the State Legislature be questioned by virtue of Article 212. Further, as noted earlier, Article 252 also shows that under the Constitution the matters of procedure do not render invalid an Act to which assent has been given to by the President or the Governor, as the case may be. Inasmuch as the Bill in question was a Money Bill, the contrary contention by the petitioner against the passing of the said Bill by the Legislative Assembly alone is unacceptable.
43.In the light of the above discussion, we hold that Respondent No. 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 Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012. However, we direct the State to take all endeavors JUDGMENTfor 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.
44.Under these circumstances, all the writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before this Court are dismissed. The appeal filed by the State of U.P. and the T.C.(C) No. 74 of 2013 are disposed of on the above terms. Inasmuch as we have not gone into the merit of the decisions taken by Respondent No. 2 – Lokayukta, the matters questioning those decisions which are pending in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad/Lucknow Bench are to be disposed of on merits in the light of the above conclusion upholding the Amendment Act of 2012. Accordingly, the transfer petitions are disposed of.