File - PTI Photo / TV GRAB
SC to Interpret LoP Provision for Lokpal, Says Issue Cannot Be Prolonged

The Supreme Court today agreed to interpret Leader of Opposition (LoP) provision for the purpose of appointment of Lokpal in which LoP is a selection committee member and asked the Centre to make its stand clear within two weeks, saying the legislation cannot be put in "cold storage".

Emphasising the importance of the post, a bench headed by Chief Justice R M Lodha said Leader of Opposition conveys the voice of a representative different from government in the House.

It said LoP is a very important component (under Lokpal law) and the issue needs objective consideration in view of current political situation where at present there is no Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha.

The bench also observed that the issue of LoP is relevant not only in Lokpal law but also in other existing and incoming legislations.

It said the issue cannot be prolonged and the act cannot be put in cold storage, while posting case for final disposal for September 9.

Congress, as the second largest party in the Lok Sabha with 44 seats, has been making a strong bid for the LoP post but the ruling BJP has not acceded, saying the opposition party does not have the requisite 10 per cent seats which meant it needed 55 to stake claim.

Earlier on April 24, the Centre had informed the Court that it would not take any immediate decision on appointment of chairperson and members of the Lokpal.

The Centre's submission had come on a notice issued to it by the Apex court.

The Court had on March 31 sought response from the Centre on a petition filed by an NGO questioning entire selection process for appointment of chairperson and members of Lokpal and seeking its stay.

It had asked the Centre to justify the Search Committee (Constitution, Terms and Conditions of appointment of members and manner of selection of Panel of names for appointment of Chairperson and Members of Lokpal) Rules, 2014 framed under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2014.

The plea of NGO Common Cause, filed through advocate Prashant Bhushan, had sought to declare "illegal" the rules under which selections were being done.

The PIL had sought a declaration that certain provisions of the rules are ultra vires of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act and also sought quashing of the entire selection process initiated under the rules alleging that it is "illegal, arbitrary" and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

It had said the government was going ahead with the selection process despite there being serious flaws in the rules under which selections were being done.

The petition had also said that Rule 10 (1) provides that the Search Committee shall prepare a panel of persons to be considered by the Selection Committee for appointment of chairperson and members of the Lokpal, from among the list of persons provided by the central government.

While the laws relating to CVC and Lokpal required LoP of Lok Sabha to be member of the selection committee, they also provide that appointment of the chairperson or members of these bodies shall not be invalid merely by reason of any vacancy in the committee.

The law relating to CIC and CVC also provide that when there is no recognised LoP, the leaded of single largest group be made member of the committee.

Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi also pointed out the post in the selection committee of Lokpal remain vacant if there is no LoP.

But the bench said that a proper interpretation is required on the issue as there are many statutes under which LoP is to be consulted and also because LoP conveys voice of people not represented by government.

At the beginning of the proceedings, the apex court said the implementation of Lokpal law needs to be put on fast track and asked the Centre whether it is planning to bring amendment in view of absence of LoP.

It said that LoP will have to be given wider interpretation so that statutory provision remain intact and workable.

Rohatgi further said that earlier also there has been time when there was no LoP but the court replied that such provisions were not existing at that time.

The court had on March 31 sought response from the Centre on a petition filed by an NGO questioning the entire selection process for appointment of chairperson and members of Lokpal and seeking its stay.

It had asked the Centre to justify the Search Committee (Constitution, Terms and Conditions of appointment of members and manner of selection of Panel of names for appointment of Chairperson and Members of Lokpal) Rules, 2014 framed under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2014.

The plea of NGO Common Cause, filed through advocate Prashant Bhushan, had sought to declare "illegal" the rules under which selections were being done.

The PIL had sought a declaration that certain provisions of the rules are ultra vires of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act and also sought quashing of the entire selection process initiated under the rules alleging that it is "illegal, arbitrary" and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

It had said the government was going ahead with the selection process despite there being serious flaws in the rules under which selections were being done.

The petition had also said that Rule 10 (1) provides that the Search Committee shall prepare a panel of persons to be considered by the Selection Committee for appointment of chairperson and members of the Lokpal, from among the list of persons provided by the central government.

Emerging story. Watch this space for updates as more details come in
Follow us on Twitter for all updates, like us on Facebook for important and fun stuff
Translate into:
© Copyright PTI. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of any PTI content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without their prior written consent.


Post a Comment
Share your thoughts
You are not logged in, please log in or register
Must See
Daily Mail
Digression

17/D-21
Aug 24, 2014
04:14 AM

The question is very simple:
Does supreme court has jurisdiction over the decisions taken by LOk Shabha Speaker?

Pramod, Tucson
16/D-2
Aug 24, 2014
12:13 AM

Have the opposition parties acknowledged congress as their LEADER ?

KSJ, Bengaluru
15/D-61
Aug 23, 2014
10:09 AM

I completely agree with Akshay's assessment of CJ Lodha. Ever since he became the CJI, he is looking for confrontation with the government. It first started with Gopal Subramanian where government's reservations were shown to be 'interfering' with the judiciary. Second, Lodha spoke about fast tracking cases against MPs but when Modi wanted the same, he did a shameful somersault. Third, over the last few years there was debate and consensus on the failure of the collegium system. Almost every judge and SC lawyer was of the view that the collegium system was a constitutional aberration. Now when the NDA government passed the JAC Bill in both houses with overwhelming majority, our dear CJI starts lamenting the demise of the collegium system! And finally, after dismissing a PIL on LOP a couple of weeks ago, Lodha starts telling us about his personal imaginations about the LOP.

As usual, on each of these issues the MSM never pointed out CJI's hypocrisy, but created a narrative that the Judiciary is slamming the government for trying to usurp its powers.

RSM, Delhi
14/D-50
Aug 23, 2014
07:13 AM

The SC can interpret laws. It cannot tell the Speaker what he/she may do in the House. Unless the SC is itching for a constitutional confrontation, the solution is very simple. Let the SC rule that wherever the term "LoP"is used in any statute, it shall mean the leader of the single opposition party where the Speaker has not "recognised" any person as Leader of the Opposition. This should take care of any concerns that the voice of the opposition is not being heard.

Driving to a meeting in a car with the National Flag (a perk of holding LoP position) is not going to get that voice any more respect. It didn't help Sushma Swaraj whose legitimate reasoned dissent was arrogantly dismissed by Maun Moan and Chiddu in selecting "Tainted" Thomas as CVC..

Once the SC makes such a ruling, selection of Lokpal can go ahead and the laws amended later.

Bonita, Chennai
13/D-34
Aug 23, 2014
02:19 AM

>> He is doing his job. He does not want Modi to use the same shenanigans in the process to appoint the Lokpal that he did in the appointmnet of the Gujarat Lokayukta.

The judiciary had disgraced itself in the Gujarat Lokayukta case. Hope it doesn't do the same this time too.

Whats InAName
San Francisco, United States
Order by

Order by

Order by

ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISING RATES | COPYRIGHT & DISCLAIMER | COMMENTS POLICY

OUTLOOK TOPICS:    a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   
Or just type in a few initial letters of a topic: