Sachchidanand Gupta "Sachchey" v. State of U.P. through Chief Secretary & Ors.
Background
The Supreme Court had earlier, on 16 December 2015, used its special constitutional powers (Article 142) to appoint retired Justice Virendra Singh as the Lokayukta of Uttar Pradesh after the State failed for years to fill the post despite repeated court directions. The petitioner, a practising advocate, filed this writ petition alleging that the State had misled the Court into making that appointment, pointing to a letter from the Allahabad High Court's Chief Justice (written the same day) objecting to Justice Virendra Singh's name. Connected contempt petitions had also been filed over the State's prolonged failure to appoint a Lokayukta at all.
Decision Breakdown
The Court examined correspondence between the UP Chief Justice, the Chief Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition about which names had actually been agreed upon for the Lokayukta post, and found the factual picture "hazy, unclear and uncertain": it was not clear the three constitutional functionaries had truly agreed on Justice Virendra Singh's name. Because the Chief Justice of the High Court had in fact raised reservations about that name (a letter the Supreme Court did not have before it when it made its 16 December order), and relying on precedent giving primacy to the Chief Justice's opinion in such consultative appointments, the Court recalled its earlier order. In its place, the Court itself appointed Justice Sanjay Misra (a retired judge of the Allahabad High Court) as the new Lokayukta, noting his name appeared on the lists discussed by both the Chief Justice and the Chief Minister. The writ petition and both contempt petitions were disposed of with directions that consequential appointment orders be issued without delay and compliance reported to the Registry within a week.
Lesson Learnt
Even a Supreme Court order made under its widest constitutional powers can be revisited and corrected if it later turns out the Court was not given the full facts; and courts filling constitutional vacancies (like an ombudsman's post) will give weight to the views of the relevant Chief Justice in the consultation process, not just the executive's preference.