UP Lokayukta Act | Allahabad High Court Issues Notice On Ex-IPS Officer's Plea Against Exemption Provision For CM; Rejects Another Plea On Sitting Lokayukta

The court, however, dismissed another plea he filed seeking a writ of quo warranto against the current Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas.

Finding his first writ plea as maintainable, a Bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Brij Raj Singh issued notice to the Advocate General and directed the listing of the matter after service of the notice to him.

Briefly put, in Writ-C No.9022 of 2025, Thakur prayed for striking down the word 'Chief Minister' in Section 2(g) of the Act as he contends that the same is extremely arbitrary, improper, meaningless, senseless and dangerous for attempting to 'save' the CM from any allegation and grievance of any kind.

"…the CM gets saved for any abuse of his position as such to obtain any gain or favour to himself or to any other person or to cause undue harm or hardship to any other person", Thakur's plea states.

In essence, this provision excludes the Chief Minister from the definition of a 'public servant' who is amenable to Lokayukta's scrutiny.

In his plea, Thakur also assailed the proviso in Section 5 of the Act, which permits a Lokayukta or Up-Lokayukta to continue in office even after the expiry of their term until a successor assumes charge.

The state raised a preliminary objection to this plea by referring to Supreme Court's decision in Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2014, where the continuance of Justice NK Mehrotra as Lokayukta was upheld.

However, the Bench clarified that in that case, the validity of the amended provision itself was not under challenge, whereas in the present matter, the petitioner has directly assailed the constitutionality of the amended Section 5 which provides for extension of the term of Lokayukta till such time his successor enters upon his office.

Therefore, the Court noted, the bar of Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui would not apply. Accordingly, this writ plea was found to be maintainable and notice was issued on it.

Quo Warranto Plea Against Sitting Lokayukta Dismissed

Regarding the second petition (Writ-C No.9055 of 2025), the Court noted that Thakur had sought a writ of quo warranto directing Justice Sanjay Mishra (Lokayukta) and Up-Lokayuktas Shambhu Singh Yadav and Dinesh Kumar Singh to vacate their offices.

In this plea, a mandamus was also sought to ensure the earliest appointment of a new Lokayukta within two months.

Rejecting this plea, the Court noted that the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta (Amendment) Act, 2024 (effective 26 February 2024) has limited the tenure of sitting Lokayuktas and Up-Lokayuktas to five years or until they attain the age of seventy, whichever is earlier.

However, the Bench observed that the amendment operates prospectively and does not apply to incumbents already holding office.

The Court further observed that the petitioner has no subsisting legal right, and there is no statutory duty cast upon the respondent that could warrant the issuance of mandamus. Consequently, Writ-C No.9055 of 2025 was dismissed.