Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
Background
Petitioners challenged the Uttar Pradesh amendment extending the Lokayukta's term from six to eight years and continuing the incumbent until a successor took office. They argued that this improperly reappointed a person whose term had ended and that the amendment had wrongly bypassed the Legislative Council as a Money Bill. Connected proceedings challenged Lokayukta recommendations themselves.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court dismissed the constitutional challenges and upheld the incumbent's continued office under the retrospective amendment. It treated the longer term as legislative policy and gave effect to the statute's retrospective operation. In this 2014 ruling, it also treated the Speaker's Money Bill certification and the legislative procedure as beyond the asserted court challenge. The State was directed to endeavour to select a successor preferably within six months. The Court left challenges to individual Lokayukta decisions for merits determination in the High Court; its broad certification-immunity reasoning must be read with the later decision identified in the note.
Lesson Learnt
The legislature's valid retrospective extension supported the incumbent's continued service without deciding whether his individual recommendations were correct. The 2014 statement about immunity of Money Bill certification should not be relied on as the present legal position.