Challenge to 'Chief Minister' in S.2(g) & Indefinite Term in S.5 of UP Lokayukta Act, 1975 is Maintainable: Allahabad High Court - 2025-09-15

Allahabad High Court Admits Plea Challenging Key Provisions of UP Lokayukta Act, Dismisses Petition for Incumbent's Removal

LUCKNOW: The Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench has admitted a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of key provisions within the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975. A Division Bench comprising Justice Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Brij Raj Singh found the challenge maintainable while simultaneously dismissing a separate petition that sought the immediate removal of the current Lokayukta, Justice Sanjay Mishra, and two Up-Lokayuktas.

Overview of the Case

The court was presented with two writ petitions filed by Amitabh Thakur.

• Writ-C No. 9022 of 2025: This petition challenged the constitutionality of:

  • The inclusion of the "Chief Minister" in the definition of "public servant" under Section 2(g) of the Act.
  • The proviso in Section 5 that allows a Lokayukta or Up-Lokayukta to continue in office beyond their term until a successor is appointed.

• Writ-C No. 9055 of 2025: This petition sought a writ of Quo Warranto to direct the incumbent Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas to vacate their offices, and a writ of Mandamus to compel the state to appoint a new Lokayukta within two months.

Arguments Presented

State's Preliminary Objection: The State, represented by Additional Chief Standing Counsel Sri Rajesh Tiwari, raised a preliminary objection against the first petition (9022 of 2025). The State argued that the issue of a Lokayukta continuing in office post-term expiration was already settled by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2014) . In that case, the Supreme Court had upheld the continuance of the then-Lokayukta, Mr. Justice N.K. Mehrotra, based on a 2012 amendment that extended the term and allowed for continuation until a successor was appointed.

Petitioner's Rebuttal: The petitioner contended that the Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui case was not applicable. While the earlier case challenged the continuance of the Lokayukta under the amended law, the current petition challenges the constitutional validity of the amended provision itself . The petitioner's argument was directed at the law's vires, not just its application to a specific individual.

Court's Reasoning and Key Observations

The High Court accepted the petitioner's distinction, making a pivotal observation on the maintainability of the challenge.

"In this case, the petitioner has challenged the amended provision itself extending the term of Lokayukta till such time his successor enters upon his office, therefore, judgement rendered in Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, will not apply to the petitioner."

The bench concluded that the preliminary objection by the State was not sufficient to dismiss the petition at the threshold. The court held that the petition (Writ-C No. 9022 of 2025) was maintainable and issued a notice to the Advocate General, as is procedural when the constitutionality of a state law is challenged.

Dismissal of the Quo Warranto Plea: Regarding the second petition (Writ-C No. 9055 of 2025) seeking the removal of the incumbents, the court dismissed it outright. The bench noted that a recent amendment, the U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta Amendment Act of 2024, had been made prospective in nature. This new act limits the tenure to five years or 70 years of age but does not apply retroactively to the sitting Lokayukta. Therefore, the court found no grounds to issue a writ of Quo Warranto .

Furthermore, the court found no "subsisting legal right" with the petitioner or a "statutory duty" cast upon the respondents that would justify a writ of Mandamus to direct the appointment of a new Lokayukta within a specified timeframe.

Final Decision and Implications

• Writ-C No. 9055 of 2025: Dismissed. The plea for the immediate removal of the current Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas was rejected.
• Writ-C No. 9022 of 2025: Admitted. The court will now proceed to hear the challenge to the constitutional validity of including the "Chief Minister" under the Act's purview and the provision allowing for an indefinite continuation in office.

The decision to entertain the challenge to the Act's provisions sets the stage for a significant judicial review of the state's anti-corruption ombudsman law, particularly concerning the tenure and scope of the Lokayukta's office.