How Akhilesh Yadav tried to handpick Lokayukta until Supreme Court cracked down

The Lokayukta is chosen by a selection committee comprising the Chief Minister, Leader of Opposition and Chief Justice of the High Court.

Written by Utkarsh Anand | New Delhi | Updated: January 12, 2016 11:18 am
Akhilesh with Swami Prasad Maurya, Leader of Opposition in the UP Assembly. (Express Archive) Akhilesh Yadav with Swami Prasad Maurya, Leader of Opposition in the UP Assembly. (Express Archive)

The drama and politics over the appointment of the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta had been on in the state for more than a year before the Supreme Court, in an extraordinary step on December 16, 2015, chose Justice (retd) Virendra Singh, a former judge of the Allahabad High Court, from a list of names sent by the SP government for the post.

Also read: You couldn’t choose Lokayukta so we are doing it: SC tells UP

Almost immediately, Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud of Allahabad High Court protested, writing to Governor Ram Naik against the inclusion of Justice Virendra Singh’s name in the list sent to the Supreme Court. He said this was done despite his objections and an assurance from Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav that Singh would not be on the panel.

Simply put: Drama over UP Lokayukta appointment

The Lokayukta is chosen by a selection committee comprising the Chief Minister, Leader of Opposition and Chief Justice of the High Court.

Citing Justice Chandrachud’s letter, a plea was moved in the Supreme Court and, on being questioned by the court, the UP government decided to defer Singh’s swearing-in until the matter is heard next on January 19.

Watch video UP Lokayukta’s Appointment Drama

Documents accessed by The Indian Express give a bizarre account of how Uttar Pradesh went about the process. Consider these:

* When Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav and Leader of Opposition Swami Prasad Maurya met on January 28, 2015 to consider a name for Lokayukta, the list before them included at least 30 dead judges. The oldest among them had retired in 1951.

* There were 396 names for consideration: 41 former Chief Justices of India, 28 sitting Supreme Court judges, 150 former Supreme Court judges, 76 sitting judges of Allahabad High Court and 101 former High Court judges. But the Chief Minister and Leader of Opposition agreed on only one name — Justice (retd) Ravindra Singh.

* Chief Justice Chandrachud wrote six letters to Akhilesh Yadav, seeking a meeting or raising objections over the CM’s choice for Lokayukta.

* Governor Ram Naik wrote three letters to the Chief Minister, reminding him that he must meet the Leader of Opposition and Chief Justice together for consultation.

* In one letter, the Governor referred to the Chief Minister’s “adamancy” over Justice Ravindra Singh’s name and “forcing” the Chief Justice to agree to his choice.

* The Chief Minister wrote to the Chief Justice that it is “not possible nor feasible” to continue consultations with him.

Read story in Hindi here

Documents show the Chief Minister and Leader of Opposition first met in November 2014. The Chief Secretary then sought from the High Court Registrar General names of High Court judges who had retired between January 1 and December 31, 2014 and those who would be retiring in 2015. The Registrar General sought a clarification, saying not only these judges but also all sitting and retired Supreme Court and High Court judges were also eligible for appointment.

On January 28, 2015, the Chief Minister sent a letter to Justice Chandrachud, informing him that he and the Leader of Opposition had nominated Justice Ravindra Singh as the next Lokayukta.

On February 12, Justice Chandrachud wrote back, pointing out that the Lokayukta’s tenure was for 8 years and so it was of utmost importance to shortlist some names and the final choice should be made jointly by the selection committee, based on high ranking and integrity of an individual. He said he was willing to meet the Chief Minister at a convenient date and time for consultation.

On April 10, Akhilesh Yadav wrote to Justice Chandrachud, reiterating Justice Ravindra Singh’s name. He referred to the minutes of the meeting held between him and Maurya.

On April 17, Justice Chandrachud informed the Chief Minister that the list he and Maurya considered included 20 former CJIs who were no more and other former SC and HC judges who had passed away. Questioning fairness and objectivity, the Chief Justice said there was nothing to indicate the basis on which Justice Ravindra Singh, who was then a sitting judge, was selected from among 396 sitting and retired judges.

Justice Chandrachud pointed out that Justice Ravindra Singh belongs to Mainpuri, the home turf of SP chief Mulayam Singh Yadav, and that his brother and two sons had been in a panel of lawyers of the SP government. “I am firmly of the view that a person who has such a close affiliation to the ruling political party in the state government should not be nominated to the post of Lokayukta,” Justice Chandrachud wrote, rejecting the nomination.

On June 11 Akhilesh Yadav, in his letter, told the Chief Justice that the UP Lokayukta Act did not prescribe any specific procedure and that it would not be correct to limit them to any fixed selection process. Asking Justice Chandrachud to agree to Justice Ravindra Singh’s name, the CM said Singh’s personal details “have no bearing on his appointment”.

On July 1, Justice Chandrachud replied that since he was unable to persuade his conscience, he was again rejecting Justice Singh’s name again. The Chief Justice also requested the Chief Minister to shortlist some names and decide by consensus. On the same day, Justice Ravindra Singh retired as a High Court judge.

On July 18, Justice Chandrachud and Akhilesh Yadav had a meeting but there was still no panel of names and the former refused to agree to Justice Singh’s name.

Meanwhile, as the six month-deadline set by the Supreme Court in April 2014 to appoint the new Lokayukta lapsed, a contempt petition was filed. On July 23, the court asked UP to complete the task in 30 days.

Referring to this order, Justice Chandrachud wrote again to Akhilesh Yadav on July 29, requesting him to prepare a list of names and have a meeting of the selection committee.

But on August 4, the Chief Minister reiterated that there had been “thorough” deliberation between him and Maurya who “reflected the perception of the people at large” in recommending Justice Ravindra Singh’s name.

On August 6, Justice Chandrachud told the UP CM that his statement was “a reflection of fundamental flaw in the process” and that there had been no meeting in which all three members of the selection committee sat together.

At this stage, Governor Ram Naik entered the fray. On August 20, he reminded the Chief Minister that consultation with the Chief Justice was a must. Naik said that the Leader of Opposition too had written saying he did not know about the disagreement on Justice Singh’s name, that any decision taken contrary to the Lokayukta Act would be invalid.

But on August 22, Akhilesh Yadav wrote to the Chief Justice that “almost nine months have been spent in this process and now it is not possible nor feasible to start this exercise afresh after the decision of the state cabinet”. He said Justice Ravindra Singh’s recommendation was again being sent to the Governor.

On August 24, the Governor wrote to the Chief Minister that the episode “goes to reflect the mere adamancy and amounts to forcing the other two consultees, particularly the Chief Justice, to necessarily agree on the sole name of the CM’s recommendee, Justice Ravindra Singh”. Naik also referred to “huge taints” against Singh and declined the CM’s recommendation again.

The UP government responded by bringing an amendment Bill on August 28, removing the requirement to consult the Chief Justice in the selection of the Lokayukta. After it was passed by the Assembly, the Bill was sent for approval to the Governor.

But the Governor sat over the Bill and the Supreme Court issued strictures against the state government over the delay in the Lokayukta’s appointment. The Chief Minister then called a meeting with the Chief Justice on September 27. Informed that the proposed amendment envisaged no role for the Chief Justice in the selection process, Justice Chandrachud placed on record his reservation against completing the selection process.

On December 14, the Supreme Court questioned the state government’s “agenda” and gave it two days to appoint the new Lokayukta. Consequently, the Chief Minister, Leader of Opposition and Chief Justice had an almost five-hour-long meeting on December 15 but failed to reach a consensus.

They again met on December 16 at 9.30 am but since there was no meeting ground, they decided to reconvene. But around 1 pm, the Supreme Court chose Justice (retd) Virendra Singh’s name from a list of five names, purportedly shortlisted by the selection committee. The court was also that the Chief Justice had no name to recommend.

But in his letter to the Governor the same day, the Chief Justice said he had proposed five names for a discussion, that the Chief Minister had reservations on one. During the meeting on December 15, Akhilesh Yadav suggested the name of Justice (retd) Virendra Singh but, Justice Chandrachud said, he objected to the name “on grounds of integrity”.

When they met on the morning of December 16, Justice Chandrachud said, the Chief Minister said Justice (retd) Virendra Singh’s name was not pressed or proposed by the state government anymore. The deliberations zeroed in on the name of a sitting High Court judge and the Chief Justice said he would revert at 5 pm, after court hours.

On December 29, the state government issued a press release stating that Justice (retd) Virendra Singh’s was the first name to be discussed at the meetings on December 15-16.

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App now

  1. P
    PagaleshYadav
    Jan 12, 2016 at 3:26 am
    akhilesh has gone mad
    Reply
    1. A
      Abhilakh
      Jan 12, 2016 at 5:40 am
      The day one after elected as chief minster Akhilesh Yadav work as puppet of his four uncle . I really appropriate him after electing as youngest CM , but he do nothing for state except his home town . Always protect his corrupt uncles and political leader and sack honest IAS or IPS officer .spending public money on safai mohotsav and distribution of laptap ( sign of money for votes) so many riots happens under his government and political murder under his governace shows weak leader ship quality . And now delaying in appointment of lokayukta and picking of his favorite candidate. And promote himself achievement on social media or television and metro trains never makes him CM again . Now make me think twice 'Is i vote wrong candidate ? i will never vote for him
      Reply
      1. A
        ashok
        Jan 12, 2016 at 1:04 am
        The cm should be sacked
        Reply
        1. K
          Karunakaran
          Jan 11, 2016 at 11:43 pm
          Why did the SC not choose and install a Lokayukta in Gujarat when the mann-key man was the CM? It is fairly evident the PDP has seen the terrible consequences as a result of partnership with BJP. The Central Government is entirely run by the PMO, and not by the parliament. The Parliament, where all matters should be discussed, hardly knows what is happening. Because, the crouching, dokhla-eating Gujjubhai, cannot speak. The crouching, dokhla-eating Gujjubhai, only knows how to do the drama-queen acting for the invited cheering supporters (mostly Gujjus), but he cannot speak. So the Central Government is run by the PMO, not by the Parliament. PDP has seen the result of Delhi elections, the result of Bihar elections, the result of Gujarat elections, and the result of even Madhya Pradesh elections. Most voters have deserted the BJP and the drama-queen, crouching, dokhla-eating Gujjubhai. So PDP's future can only be with the Congress party. Congress party is sincere. No false promises like those of the crouching, dokhla-eating Gujjubhai.
          Reply
          1. C
            Col S
            Jan 12, 2016 at 4:12 am
            This the Clic EXASMPLE of PROMOTING CORRUPTION s and WAYS to protect the CORRUPT. If a LOKAYUKTA is product of manition, favours and caste/ group loyalty. GOOD BYE TO ERADIICATION of corruption. Country is DOOMED to be ROBBED and LOOTED by these people.
            Reply
            1. d
              dv1936
              Jan 11, 2016 at 11:40 pm
              Law of jungle in its best form, who cares for rule of law.
              Reply
              1. N
                NArayan
                Jan 12, 2016 at 9:01 am
                This article only proves the judiciary has some corrupt elements and also not immune from politics. The entire system should be cleansed by the SC without any bias or prejudice.
                Reply
                1. I
                  indian
                  Jan 12, 2016 at 4:43 am
                  This episode exhibits (i) even an educated CM is no better; why then should we insist on minimum education criteria for an election candidate ? (ii) some judges are of 'questionable integrity' and/or have links with political parties. So why consider them 'holier than thou' ?
                  Reply
                  1. j
                    jaihind101
                    Jan 12, 2016 at 2:02 am
                    ACCOUNTING OF TIME TO TIME MEETINGS GAVE IDEA HOW CORRUPT THIS C M IS IT IS SHAME THAT PEOPLE OF U P ARE FOOLED BY THIS FAMILY AND GET ELECTED
                    Reply
                    1. j
                      jaihind101
                      Jan 12, 2016 at 2:01 am
                      corrupt akhilesh and looter cabinet ONLY GOD CAN HELP U P STUPID PEOPLE OF U P ARE ELECTING CORRUPT PEOPLE AS THEIR LEADER HOPE THEY GET SOME SENSE AND ELECT HONEST PEOPLE AS THEIR LEADERS U P DESERVES GOOD LEADERSHIP ONLY IF THEY USE THEIR COMMONSENSE AND ELCT HONEST AND DESH BHAKTA
                      Reply
                      1. J
                        Jai Mittal
                        Jan 11, 2016 at 11:22 pm
                        Even after this there is no likely hood some one get punishment...
                        Reply
                        1. J
                          Joseph R Stephen
                          Jan 12, 2016 at 2:48 am
                          The supreme court should take away some of the powers - police, judges, prosecution, anti-corruption from the hands of PM and CM. It has been established since 1947 that our rulers ( RULERS , the mighty Kings and queens ) really dont care about the country , consution , law and duty to it. We are in a tipping point where either our democracy will become a banana republic like stan or we become like china. At full cost we have to protect our freedom, right to choose leaders, right to kick them out, and most important right to expect lawful actions by our elected leaders. It is time take away this subjects immediately from the direct interference of Politicians.
                          Reply
                          1. H
                            HILARY
                            Jan 12, 2016 at 5:25 am
                            If your report is true it exposes the chief minister as a fraudster.
                            Reply
                            1. M
                              Mariam Redippali
                              Jan 13, 2016 at 12:36 pm
                              Akhilesh Yadav is an example of corrupted people. TheVoiceOfNation exposes his bare truth.
                              Reply
                              1. M
                                Mohan
                                Jan 12, 2016 at 5:37 pm
                                When bizarre persons get elected bizarre things happen. How come the self appointed conscience keepers of this nation the award wapasi brigade are silent on how the State Government removed the requirement of consulting the CJ of the HC just to appoint a favourite of the CM o the post of Lokayakta ?
                                Reply
                                1. M
                                  Mayank
                                  Jan 11, 2016 at 10:59 pm
                                  Wow, amazing how deeply corrupt the UP state government is. Also, thank you for the format of the article. Refreshing to read a chronological order sort of thing. This is News.
                                  Reply
                                  1. D
                                    Dr Navajith
                                    Jan 11, 2016 at 11:49 pm
                                    Amazing work of journalism. A commendable job by IE. The article was able to bring out the adamancy of corruption to stay in the governance. It also reinstates the importance of a strong ombudsman for the running a government.
                                    Reply
                                    1. M
                                      Manoj Dhyani
                                      Jan 12, 2016 at 4:52 am
                                      It shows at the 1st place Akhilesh govt never wanted to move further on Lokayukta appointment; 2nd under pressure his govt tried to delay it, as much as, they could; and 3rdly when intervebtion arrived his preference was dictatorial...very fishy one!
                                      Reply
                                      1. S
                                        Sathish
                                        Jan 12, 2016 at 8:25 am
                                        All CMs and all pressutes (including trolls) are fraudsters. Jesucks shaves!
                                        Reply
                                        1. S
                                          Sathish
                                          Jan 12, 2016 at 7:42 am
                                          Jesucks shaves!
                                          Reply
                                          1. S
                                            Sathish
                                            Jan 12, 2016 at 2:52 am
                                            Jesus shaves!
                                            Reply
                                            1. Load More Comments