LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 provisions regarding the selection of the Lokpal Chairperson and Members are unconstitutional.
CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Public Interest Litigation
Case Name: Just Society vs. Union of India
Judgment Date: April 27, 2017
Can the absence of primacy for the Chief Justice of India’s opinion in the Lokpal selection process invalidate the law? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case challenging the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. The petitioner argued that the Act’s provisions were unconstitutional because they did not give enough weight to the Chief Justice’s opinion and lacked clear criteria for appointing an “eminent jurist”. This blog post explains the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Act.
The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, consisting of Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Navin Sinha. Justice Ranjan Gogoi authored the judgment.
Case Background
The petitioner, Just Society, filed a case challenging specific sections of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. The core of the challenge was that the Act did not give primacy to the opinion of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) or their nominee in the selection of the Lokpal Chairperson and Members. The petitioner also argued that the Act lacked specific criteria for appointing an “eminent jurist” to the selection committee.
The petitioner contended that since four former judges of the Supreme Court had expressed interest in the Chairperson position, the CJI or their nominee would be best suited to assess their suitability. The petitioner also argued that the lack of defined norms for an ’eminent jurist’ made the selection process vague and susceptible to bias.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013 | Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act enacted. |
| 2015 | Just Society files a case challenging the Act (Transferred Case(C) No.25/2015). |
| April 27, 2017 | Supreme Court dismisses the petition. |
Legal Framework
The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of specific sections of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, arguing that they violate Articles 14 and 50 of the Constitution of India.
The challenged sections include:
- Section 3(2)(a): This section deals with the composition of the Lokpal.
- Section 4(1)(d): This section specifies that the Chief Justice of India or their nominee is a member of the selection committee.
- Section 4(1)(e): This section provides for the inclusion of an “eminent jurist” in the selection committee.
- Section 4(2): This section deals with the manner of selection of the Chairperson and Members of the Lokpal.
- Second proviso to Section 4(3): This proviso deals with the procedure for selection in case of a vacancy.
- Section 10: This section deals with the term of office of the Chairperson and Members of the Lokpal.
- Proviso to Section 14(3): This proviso deals with the procedure for removal of the Chairperson and Members of the Lokpal.
- Section 16: This section deals with the powers of the Lokpal.
- Section 37(2): This section deals with the procedure for investigation by the Lokpal.
- Section 63: This section deals with the power of the Central Government to make rules.
The petitioner argued that the absence of primacy for the Chief Justice of India’s opinion in Section 4(1)(d) and the lack of defined criteria for an “eminent jurist” in Section 4(1)(e) made these provisions unconstitutional.
Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, was flawed because it did not give primacy to the opinion of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) or their nominee in the selection process. They contended that the CJI or their nominee would be best suited to assess the suitability of former judges for the Lokpal Chairperson position, especially since several former judges had applied.
Additionally, the petitioner argued that the Act lacked specific criteria for appointing an “eminent jurist” under Section 4(1)(e), making the selection process arbitrary and potentially biased. They claimed this lack of clarity made the provision constitutionally weak.
The petitioner also contended that the provisions of the Act were ultra vires Articles 14 and 50 of the Constitution of India.
The Supreme Court noted that the petitioner’s arguments were based on the premise that the opinion of the Chief Justice of India should have primacy in the selection process. The petitioner highlighted that other statutes use the term “in consultation,” which has been interpreted to mean that the opinion of the Chief Justice has primacy. However, the Lokpal Act does not use this term.
| Petitioner’s Submissions | Respondent’s Submissions |
|---|---|
| ✓ The opinion of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) or their nominee should have primacy in the selection of the Lokpal Chairperson and Members. | ✓ The Lokpal Act is constitutionally valid. |
| ✓ The absence of primacy for the CJI’s opinion in Section 4(1)(d) of the Act is unconstitutional. | ✓ The legislature has the authority to decide whether to give primacy to the CJI’s opinion. |
| ✓ There are no norms/criteria for appointing an “eminent jurist” under Section 4(1)(e) of the Act. | ✓ The decision to appoint an eminent jurist is left to a high-powered body, and no illegality can be seen. |
| ✓ This lack of criteria makes the provision arbitrary and susceptible to bias. | ✓ It is not mandatory for all appointments to give primacy to the opinion of the CJI or their nominee. |
| ✓ The provisions of the Act are ultra vires Articles 14 and 50 of the Constitution of India. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in this case. However, the court addressed the following points:
- Whether the absence of primacy for the Chief Justice of India’s opinion in the selection committee under Section 4(1)(d) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, renders the provision unconstitutional.
- Whether the lack of specific criteria for the appointment of an “eminent jurist” under Section 4(1)(e) of the Act makes the provision unconstitutional.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the absence of primacy for the Chief Justice of India’s opinion in the selection committee under Section 4(1)(d) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, renders the provision unconstitutional. | No. | The legislature has the authority to decide whether to give primacy to the CJI’s opinion. The Constitution does not mandate that the CJI’s opinion must have primacy in all appointments. |
| Whether the lack of specific criteria for the appointment of an “eminent jurist” under Section 4(1)(e) of the Act makes the provision unconstitutional. | No. | The decision to appoint an eminent jurist is left to a high-powered body consisting of high constitutional functionaries. No illegality can be seen in the provision. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any cases or books in this judgment. The court primarily relied on its interpretation of the Constitution and the legislative intent behind the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
| Authority | How it was used |
|---|---|
| Constitution of India, Article 14 | The Court considered whether the challenged provisions violated the principle of equality. |
| Constitution of India, Article 50 | The Court examined whether the challenged provisions undermined the separation of powers. |
| Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, Section 4(1)(d) | The Court analyzed the provision regarding the selection committee and the role of the Chief Justice of India or their nominee. |
| Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, Section 4(1)(e) | The Court analyzed the provision regarding the appointment of an “eminent jurist” to the selection committee. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| The opinion of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) or their nominee should have primacy in the selection of the Lokpal Chairperson and Members. | The Court rejected this argument, stating that the legislature has the authority to decide whether to give primacy to the CJI’s opinion. |
| The absence of primacy for the CJI’s opinion in Section 4(1)(d) of the Act is unconstitutional. | The Court held that the absence of primacy does not render the provision unconstitutional. |
| There are no norms/criteria for appointing an “eminent jurist” under Section 4(1)(e) of the Act. | The Court found no infirmity in this provision, stating that the decision is left to a high-powered body. |
| The provisions of the Act are ultra vires Articles 14 and 50 of the Constitution of India. | The Court rejected this argument, finding no violation of the Constitution. |
The Court held that the absence of primacy for the Chief Justice of India’s opinion in the selection process does not make the law unconstitutional. The Court stated that it is the legislature’s prerogative to decide whether to give primacy to the Chief Justice’s opinion. The Court also found that the lack of specific criteria for an “eminent jurist” was not a flaw, as the decision was left to a high-powered body.
The Court stated that, “If the Legislature in its wisdom had thought it proper not to accord primacy to the opinion of the Chief Justice or his nominee and accord equal status to the opinion rendered by the Chief Justice or his nominee and treat such opinion at par with the opinion rendered by other members of the Selection Committee, we do not see how such legislative wisdom can be questioned on the ground of constitutional infirmity.”
The Court also noted, “It is not the mandate of the Constitution that in all matters concerning the appointment to various Offices in different bodies, primacy must be accorded to the opinion of the Chief Justice or his nominee.”
Regarding the appointment of an eminent jurist, the Court observed, “Even if the Act is to lay down norms, it would be difficult to understand the same to be all comprehensive, satisfying all concerned.”
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle of legislative supremacy and the understanding that the Constitution does not mandate primacy for the Chief Justice of India’s opinion in all appointments. The Court emphasized that the legislature has the authority to decide how selection committees are structured and how opinions are weighed. The Court also noted that the selection of an eminent jurist was entrusted to a high-powered body, which mitigated concerns about potential bias or arbitrariness.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Legislative Supremacy | 40% |
| No Constitutional Mandate for Primacy of CJI | 35% |
| High-Powered Body for Eminent Jurist Selection | 25% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
Logical Reasoning
Issue: Does the absence of primacy for CJI’s opinion in the Lokpal selection committee make the law unconstitutional?
Court’s Analysis: The Constitution does not mandate primacy for the CJI’s opinion in all appointments.
Court’s Analysis: The legislature has the authority to decide how selection committees are structured.
Conclusion: The absence of primacy for the CJI’s opinion does not make the law unconstitutional.
Issue: Does the lack of specific criteria for appointing an “eminent jurist” make the law unconstitutional?
Court’s Analysis: The decision to appoint an eminent jurist is left to a high-powered body.
Court’s Analysis: The Court finds no illegality in this provision.
Conclusion: The lack of specific criteria does not make the law unconstitutional.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
- The absence of primacy for the Chief Justice of India’s opinion in the selection process does not make the law unconstitutional.
- The legislature has the authority to decide the structure and functioning of selection committees.
- The lack of specific criteria for an “eminent jurist” is not a flaw, as the decision is entrusted to a high-powered body.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.
Development of Law
The judgment clarifies that the Constitution does not mandate that the opinion of the Chief Justice of India must have primacy in all appointments. It emphasizes the legislature’s authority to determine the composition and functioning of selection committees. This decision reinforces the principle of legislative supremacy in matters of statutory appointments, unless there is a clear constitutional mandate to the contrary.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the constitutional validity of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. The court found no merit in the arguments that the Act was flawed due to the absence of primacy for the Chief Justice of India’s opinion in the selection process or the lack of specific criteria for appointing an “eminent jurist.” The decision reinforces the principle of legislative supremacy and clarifies that the Constitution does not mandate primacy for the CJI’s opinion in all appointments.
Category
- Constitutional Law
- Articles 14 and 50, Constitution of India
- Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013
- Section 3(2)(a), Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013
- Section 4(1)(d), Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013
- Section 4(1)(e), Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013
- Section 4(2), Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013
- Section 4(3), Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013
- Section 10, Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013
- Section 14(3), Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013
- Section 16, Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013
- Section 37(2), Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013
- Section 63, Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013
- Public Interest Litigation
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in the case of Just Society vs. Union of India?
A: The main issue was whether certain provisions of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, were unconstitutional because they did not give primacy to the opinion of the Chief Justice of India in the selection of the Lokpal and lacked specific criteria for appointing an “eminent jurist”.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide about the Chief Justice of India’s role in the Lokpal selection?
A: The Supreme Court held that the absence of primacy for the Chief Justice of India’s opinion in the selection process does not make the law unconstitutional. The Court stated that it is the legislature’s prerogative to decide whether to give primacy to the Chief Justice’s opinion.
Q: Did the Supreme Court find any issues with the appointment of an “eminent jurist” in the Lokpal Act?
A: No, the Supreme Court found no issues with the lack of specific criteria for appointing an “eminent jurist”. The Court noted that the decision was left to a high-powered body, which mitigated concerns about potential bias or arbitrariness.
Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: This judgment reinforces the principle of legislative supremacy and clarifies that the Constitution does not mandate that the opinion of the Chief Justice of India must have primacy in all appointments. It emphasizes the legislature’s authority to determine the composition and functioning of selection committees.
Q: What are the practical implications of this judgment?
A: The judgment upholds the validity of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, ensuring that the Lokpal can continue to function as intended. It also sets a precedent that the legislature has the authority to decide on the structure of selection committees unless there is a clear constitutional mandate to the contrary.
Source: Just Society vs. Union of India