UP Lokayukta Act: Ex-IPS Officer Moves Allahabad High Court, Challenges CM's Exemption

The petition, filed by retired IPS officer Amitabh Thakur, contends that the Act’s exclusion of the Chief Minister from the Lokayukta’s purview and a clause allowing the indefinite extension of the Lokayukta’s tenure are arbitrary and violate the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Filed under Article 226, the writ names the State of Uttar Pradesh, represented through the Principal Secretaries of the Legislative and Vigilance Departments, as respondents. It seeks to declare the words “Chief Minister” in Section 2(g) and the proviso in Section 5 allowing a Lokayukta to continue in office until a successor assumes charge as null and void.

At the core of the challenge is Section 2(g), which defines a “minister” as a member of the council of ministers, excluding the Chief Minister. Thakur argues that this shields the Chief Minister from complaints of abuse of office, corruption, conflict of interest, or lack of integrity. “No logic, no sense and no argument can justify such discretion, discrimination and segregation, except the urge to safeguard corruption, illegalities and mal-administration,” the petition states.

The plea points out that this exclusion contrasts with the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013, which does not exempt the Prime Minister from the Lokpal’s scrutiny. The petition adds that presuming the Chief Minister is beyond corruption is “completely preposterous and hilarious,” citing past instances of serious corruption allegations against Chief Ministers and Prime Ministers. It further asserts that the provision exceeds the limits of “reasonable classification” and falls under “manifest arbitrariness,” a principle upheld by the Supreme Court in cases including Shayara Bano v. Union of India.

The second point of challenge is the proviso in Section 5, introduced through the 2012 amendment, which allows a Lokayukta or Up-Lokayukta to continue in office indefinitely after their five-year term until a successor is appointed. Thakur contends that this is “completely arbitrary and meaningless” since Section 5(2) already provides a clear procedure for filling vacancies. The petition claims the amendment serves as an “unwarranted carrot” for office holders to extend their tenure for months or years, depending on the satisfaction of those in power.

Thakur, an ex-IPS officer, says many of his complaints under the Act were dismissed “in an extremely arbitrary and contentious manner,” reinforcing his view of the “massive arbitrariness” and potential danger posed by these provisions.

Case Title: Amitabh Thakur vs State of UP