Supreme Court Orders Implementation of Lokpal Act Despite Pending Amendments

The Supreme Court of India has directed the government to implement the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. This order came despite the fact that the Act has some proposed amendments. The court emphasized that the existing law is workable. It also stated that the amendments are for better efficiency, not to fix fundamental flaws.

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 can be implemented despite pending amendments.

CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation

Case Name: Common Cause vs. Union of India

Judgment Date: April 27, 2017

Citation: (2017) INSC 379

Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, J. and Navin Sinha, J.

Case Background

Several petitions were filed in the Supreme Court of India. These petitions sought the implementation of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. The petitioners argued that the government was delaying the implementation. They also contended that the Lokpal was necessary for transparency and accountability.

The government stated that some provisions of the Act needed changes. They introduced an Amendment Bill in Parliament on December 18, 2014. However, the Bill was pending. The government also argued that the absence of a recognized Leader of Opposition (LOP) in the Lok Sabha was a hurdle.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The petitioners initially challenged the Search Committee Rules. They argued that the rules were not in line with the Lokpal Act. The government amended the rules to address the concerns. However, the petitioners then raised concerns that the Lokpal Act was not being implemented. They sought directions from the Supreme Court to enforce the Act.

The government stated that the Act had some deficiencies. It argued that the absence of a Leader of Opposition (LOP) was a major hurdle. They also argued that the Amendment Bill was necessary to fix the issues. The Supreme Court considered these arguments.

Legal Framework

The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 was enacted to establish a Lokpal at the central level. The Lokpal is an anti-corruption ombudsman. It is meant to inquire into allegations of corruption against public functionaries.

Section 4 of the Act deals with the constitution of the Selection Committee. This committee recommends the appointment of the Lokpal Chairperson and Members. The Selection Committee includes:

• The Prime Minister (Chairperson)
• The Speaker of the House of the People
• The Leader of Opposition in the House of the People
• The Chief Justice of India or a Judge of the Supreme Court nominated by him
• One eminent jurist nominated by the President

Section 4(2) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 states that “No appointment of a Chairperson or a Member of the Lokpal shall be invalid merely by reason of any vacancy in the Selection Committee.”

The Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977 defines “Leader of the Opposition” in Section 2 as:
“that member of the Council of States or the House of the People, as the case may be, who is, for the time being, the Leader in that House of the Party in opposition to the Government having the greatest numerical strength and recognised as such by the Chairman of the Council of States or the Speaker of the House of the People, as the case may be.”

Section 62 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 enables the Government of India to make rules to carry out the provisions of the Act.

Arguments

The petitioners argued that the government was deliberately delaying the implementation of the Lokpal Act. They stated that the absence of a Leader of Opposition (LOP) was not a valid reason. The petitioners argued that the term ‘Leader of Opposition’ could be interpreted as the leader of the largest opposition party. They also highlighted that Section 4(2) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 allows for the Selection Committee to function even with vacancies.

The petitioners cited the Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977. They also stated that the government had the power to clarify the situation under Section 62 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.

The government argued that the Lokpal Act had some inconsistencies. They stated that the absence of a recognized LOP was a major problem. The government also said that the Amendment Bill was necessary to fix these issues. The government also said that the 1977 Act cannot be used to interpret the Lokpal Act.

The government also stated that the Congress Party’s claim for the post of LOP was rejected. This was because they did not have the required 10% strength in the Lok Sabha.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues. However, the core issue was whether the Lokpal Act could be implemented despite the pending amendments and the absence of a recognized Leader of Opposition.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the Lokpal Act is a workable piece of legislation. The court stated that the proposed amendments are to improve the working of the Act, not to fix any fundamental flaw. The court also held that the absence of a Leader of Opposition is not a valid reason to delay the implementation.

The Court stated 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.” It further clarified that even without a LOP, the other members of the Selection Committee can appoint an eminent jurist.

The Court also observed that “the amendment to Section 4(3), as proposed, would, therefore, be clarificatory and will not amount to an attempt to cure a shortcoming in the Act which is proving to be an inhibition in law to the appointment of the Chairperson/ Members of the Lokpal.”

The Court quoted Justice Krishna Iyer, stating, “Law is what law does, not what law says; and the moral gap between word and deed menaces people’s faith in life and law.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with ensuring the implementation of the Lokpal Act. The court emphasized the importance of an independent body to check corruption. The court also noted that the Act had been in force for a long time without being implemented.

The court also considered the fact that the proposed amendments were not to fix fundamental flaws. Instead, they were to streamline the working of the Act. The court, therefore, concluded that the Act can be implemented without waiting for the amendments.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 is now to be implemented.
• The absence of a recognized Leader of Opposition is not a valid reason to delay the implementation.
• The Selection Committee can function even with vacancies.
• Proposed amendments are for streamlining the Act, not to fix fundamental flaws.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the government to implement the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a law duly enacted and enforced must be given effect to. This is even if there are some pending amendments. The Court also clarified that the absence of a Leader of Opposition is not a valid reason to delay the implementation of the Lokpal Act. This case reinforces the principle that a law must be implemented unless it is fundamentally flawed.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has ordered the implementation of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. The court held that the Act is workable, despite the absence of a Leader of Opposition and pending amendments. This decision emphasizes the importance of an independent anti-corruption ombudsman. It also highlights that the government must implement laws that are in force.