New Delhi: The Supreme Court, on Thursday, asked the Centre to set up the Lokpal under the 2013 law without waiting for Parliament’s approval of the standing committee’s suggestion for amending the law to include leader of single largest party in the place of Leader of the Opposition to be part of the search committee.
A bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha passed this order on petitions filed by Common Cause and Youth for Equality, alleging that the Centre was dragging its feet in appointing Lokpal despite enacting the law in 2013 and notifying the same in January 2014. It said the Lokpal Act, as it stands today, “is an eminently workable piece of legislation and there is no justification to keep the enforcement of the Act under suspension till the amendments, as proposed, are carried out”.
Writing the judgment, Justice Gogoi said that if the Lokpal Act, as it exists, is otherwise workable and the amendment sought to be introduced by Parliament is aimed at a more efficient working of some of the provisions of the Act, the wholesome principle that a law duly enacted and enforced must be given effect and appropriate directions will have to be issued by the court to the said effect.
The bench rejected the Centre’s submission that the law cannot be implemented in the absence of Opposition leader and without amending the law. The bench said if, at present, the Opposition leader is not available, surely, the chairperson and the other two members of the selection committee, namely the LS Speaker and the Chief Justice of India or his nominee, may proceed to appoint an eminent jurist as a member of the selection committee.
It said there is no legal disability in a truncated selection committee to constitute a search committee for preparing a panel of persons for consideration for appointment as the chairperson and members of the Lokpal, and also for such a truncated selection committee to make recommendations to the President of India for appointment of the chairperson and members of the Lokpal.
It said that the view of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on amendments is merely an opinion with which the Executive, in the first instance, has to consider and, thereafter, the legislature has to approve. The said opinion of the Parliamentary Standing Committee would, therefore, not be sacrosanct.
The same, in any case, does not have any material bearing on the validity of the existing provisions of the Act. Such attempts cannot halt the operation and execution of the law which the Executive in its wisdom has already given effect to and has brought into force the Act.
The Bench pointed out that there can be no manner of doubt that the Parliamentary wisdom of seeking changes in an existing law by means of an amendment lies within the exclusive domain of the legislature and it is not the province of the Court to express any opinion on the exercise of the legislative prerogative in this regard.
The framing of the Amendment Bill; reference of the same to the Parliamentary Standing Committee and its report and steps to be taken are essential legislative functions which should not be ordinarily subjected to interference or intervention of the Court. Any interference, at this juncture, would negate the basic constitutional principle that the Legislature is supreme in the sphere of law making. However if the law can be enforced without the amendments then the court can intervene, it said and held that the appointment of Lokpal can be made under the 2013 law without waiting for the amendments to be approved by Parliament.
