Supreme Court directs Centre to set up Lokpal without Leader of Opposition

Paving the way for more transparency in governance, the Supreme Court on Thursday observed that the Lokpal Act in its current avatar was an "eminently workable piece of legislation and there is no justification to keep the enforcement of the Act under suspension."

Dismissing the Centre's contention, the top court gave the Lokpal Committee the go ahead to appoint the rest of the members, including an eminent jurist, even if there was no Leader of Opposition (LOP).

"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 comprising Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha further found that Acts undergo amendments all the time and that does not mean the operation and execution of the law should be halted. "Attempts at achieving better results in the working of any statute is a perpetual and ongoing exercise dictated by the experiences gained on the working 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 by resorting to the provisions of Section 1(4) of the Act."

Though the Lokpal Act was passed by the parliament in December 2013, and notified the following month, it was inactive since there was no LOP -- as understood by the parliament.

In fact, the Centre's entire defence evolved around the fact that since Congress - the single largest opposition party did not have the requisite number of seats in the parliament and hence, did not have a recognized LOP, the act could not be implemented.

Representing the government, Attorney General (AG) Mukul Rohatgi had said, "In the current scenario, it is impossible to constitute the Lokpal Bill because there are more than 20 proposed amendments that need to be cleared."

In the lokpal bill, the Chief Justice of India, the Prime Minister, the Speaker and the LoP -- a constitution post -- would select the committee that would investigate allegations of corruption against public servants and officials. However, since the current Lok Sabha does not have a LoP, the bill needed to be amended to include the leader of the main opposition party - a non constitutional post in the committee, the AG explained.

"(Mallikarjun) Kharge is the leader of the main Opposition party, but the government did not give him the status of Leader of Opposition," Rohatgi had submitted before the bench. "Unless the proposed amendment is not made, the committee cannot be formed," Rohatgi added.

Senior counsel Shanti Bhushan, representing the NGO Common Cause, however contended that the Union was delaying this issue because it no longer had honest intentions. "Can there be the slightest excuse for not implementing this Bill," Bhushan had questioned.

Bhushan emphatically submitted that there was "no rule of law in this country". Leading the argument over a batch of petitions that sought the implementation of the Bill, Bhushan prayed for a time bound direction from the apex court.

The Jan Lokpal Bill, also known as the Citizen's Ombudsman Bill, is an anti-corruption bill that was drafted by civil society activists in India seeking the appointment of a Jan Lokpal — an independent body to investigate corruption cases, and complete them within a year. The bill also envisaged the subsequent trial to be complete in the following year.

Key points

1. Lokpal at the Centre and Lokayukta in each state will be set up.

2. It would be independent to prevent any influence from ministers or bureaucrats.

3. The loss caused to the exchequer would be recovered from the accused at the time of conviction.

The Lokpal Bill makes a government official responsible towards his public duties. If the government official failed to dispense his duties, he/she would be liable to a financial penalty which would be given to the complainant as compensation.