Why Narendra Modi government is not appointing Lokpal: 15 things Supreme court told Centre

Source – financialexpress.com

Three years after the Lokpal Act came into effect, the Centre is yet to set up the office of the ombudsman and enforce the law. On Thursday, the Supreme Court of India told Modi government at the Centre that there was “no justification” to keep the enforcement of the Lokpal Act 2013 suspended. Appearing on behalf of the Centre, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told the top court that Lokpal could not be appointed because the amendments regarding the Leader of Opposition in the Lokpal law was still pending before the Parliament. The Attorney General also said that the legislature could not be directed to frame or amend any law within any time-frame.

The Lokpal Act 2013 was created by the legislature to set the office of Lokpal, which would probe into the allegations of corruption against certain public functionaries.

A batch of petitions in this matter was filed by NGO Common Cause and others which accused the Centre of “deliberately” not appointing the Lokpal. A bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha made the following 15 important observations during the hearing of the petitions on Thursday. Take a look:

1. The Lokpal Act “does not create any bar to the enforcement of the provisions”. The apex court said that the amendments proposed to the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013, and the views of the Parliamentary Standing Committee, were attempts at streamlining the working of the Act and does not constitute legal hindrances or bars its enforcement as it stands today.

2. Attempts for amendment 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 by resorting to the provisions of the Act.

3. “We, therefore, conclude by quoting Justice Krishna Iyer in reference, the Special Courts Bill, 1978 and holding that the 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.”

4. 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.

5. Section 4(2) of the Act makes it clear that the appointment of Chairperson or a Member of the Lokpal will not become invalid merely because of the reason of any vacancy in the selection committee.

6. “If, at present, the LOP is not available, surely, the Chairperson and the other two members of the Selection Committee, namely, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India or his nominee may proceed to appoint an eminent jurist as a member of the Selection Committee under Section 4(1)(e) of the Act,” the bench said.

7. “We also do not see any 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.”

8. There is no specific provision akin to section 4 (2) of the Act insofar as the constitution of the Search Committee by a truncated Selection Committee is concerned.