Court slams back-door entry into Uttar Pradesh Upper House
The Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court has slammed the Uttar Pradesh government for an apparent attempt to circumvent the constitution while arranging a "back-door entry" for nine upper house members nominated in 2003.
Lucknow: The Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court has slammed the Uttar Pradesh government for an apparent attempt to circumvent the constitution while arranging a "back-door entry" for nine upper house members nominated in 2003.
Though the term of these nine members has expired, the court passed strong remarks against the manner in which constitutional provisions for nomination of eminent persons from different fields were ignored.
"It was like a back-door entry into the August House," a bench comprising Senior Judge Pradeep Kant and Justice Shabiul Hasnain ruled.
The issue was raised through a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by local activist and lawyer BK Singh, questioning the manner in which nine nominations were made by the Mayawati government to the state legislative council in 2003.
"The judiciary has no business to go into the qualifications and credentials of persons who have been nominated to the council, but the court cannot remain silent if there was an apparent attempt to circumvent the constitution," the bench said in an order passed Friday but shared with the media Monday.
"What has been done clearly appears to be against the spirit of the Indian constitution," the court held.
Referring to the petition, the bench said: "From the records furnished by the petitioner before the court, it was quite evident that none of the nine persons nominated to the upper house had any special qualifications, experience or achievements as envisaged under the constitution for the nominated categories."
"The nominations were to be made under the provisions of... constitution, whereby eminent persons from the field of art, culture, science, cooperative movement or social work could be nominated to the upper house," the court said.
The court also expressed surprise that even the state governor did not care to return the recommendations to the government for reconsideration.