Just Society v. Union of India

Judgment

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Transferred Case (Civil) No. 25 of2015. From the Order dated 03 .03.2014 by the High Court ofJudicature, Bombay, at Mumbai in Writ Petition No. 4374 of2014. Mukul Rohatgi,AG,A. Mariarputham,AG, Sikkim, Maninder Singh, ASG, Nalin Kohli, D. K. Thakur, Sanchar Anand, Ms. Kiran Bala Sahay, AAGs, Shanti Bhushan, Vikas Singh, B. Prabakaran, Sr. Advs., Prashant Bhushan, Kartiketh, Rohit Kumar Singh, Ms. Sushrna Suri, Abhay Nevagi, Krishan Kumar, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Zeeshan Diwan, Ms. Pooja 8 Dhar, G. Ananda Selvam, Ram Sankar, Vasantha Kumar (For Gopal Balwant Sathe), J.P. Tripathi, Girdhal Upadhyay, Ms. Asha Upadhyay, R. D. Upadhyay, D. L. Chidananda, Ms. Sunita Sharma, Ritesh Kumar, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Abhinav Mukerji, Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Ms. Purnima Krishna, Aniruddha P. Mayee, A. Selvin Raja, Devendra Singh, Ankit Roy, Indrajeet Singh, Ms. VishakhaAhuja, Milind Kumar, Mishra Saurabh, Naveen Sharma, M. Yogesh Kanna, Ms. Nithya, Mrs. Mahalakshmi, Partha Sarathy, Sunil Fernandes, V. G. Pragasam, S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Ms.

Anma Mathur, Avneesh Arputham, Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Amit Arora (For Mis. Arputham Anma & Co.), Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Jesal Wahi, Ms. Puja Singh, Ms. Mamta Singh, V. K. Sharma, Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Rachna Srivastava, Sukrit R. Kapoor, Nitya Madhusoodhanan, Shishir Deshpande, Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Salvador Santosh Rebello,Anurag Sharma, Ms. K. Enat•Jli Serna, Edward Belho, Amit Kumar Singh, Ranjan Mukherjee, S. Bhowmick, Suvendu Suvasis Das, Apoor\r Singhal, Anant K. Vataya, Narsingh N. Rai, Kuldip Singh, M. Shoeb Alam, Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Ujjwal Singh, Mojahid Karim Khan, Tapesh Kumar Singhj, Mohd. Waquas, Aditya Pratap Singh, Ms. Priyanka, Ms. Priyadarshini Priya, Sarad Kumar Singhania, Noopur Singhal, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Rajaram Narayanan, P. Jeegan, Arun Singh, V. J. Usha, Ms. Divya, Ms. Sujatha, R. V. Kameshwaran, Advs. for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANJAN GOGOi, J. I. The petitioner seeks a declaration to the effect that certain provisions of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (hereinafter for short 'the Act') namely, Sections 3(2)(a) and 4(1 )( d), 4(1 )( e), 4(2), the second proviso to Section 4(3), Section 10, the proviso to Section 14(3), Section 16, Section 37(2) and Section 63 are ultra vires Articles 14 and 50 of the Constitution oflndia.

The challenge in the aforesaid transferred case (No.25 of2015) is primarily founded on the ground that the Chief Justice oflndia or his nominee Judge of the Supreme Court, under Section 4(1 )( d) of the Act, is a mere Member of the Selection Committee and the opinion rendered either by the Chief JUST SOCIETY v. UNION OF INDIA [RANJAN GOGOi, J .] Justice of India or his nominee judge has no primacy in the matter of A selection of Chairperson and Members of the Lokpal. The aforesaid contention is sought to be fortified on the basis that four former judges of this Court had exercised their option to be considered for the post of Chairperson and in such a situation it is the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India or his nominee Judge alone who would be best situated to decide 8 on the suitability of any such former judge of this Court who has/may have opted to be considered for appointment.

It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner, that there are no norms/criterion laid down for appointment ofan 'eminent jurist' under Section 4(1 )( e) of the Act thereby rendering the aforesaid provision of the Act legally and constitutionally fragile. 2. We fail to see how any of the aforesaid contentions can establish any infirmity or fragility of the provisions of the Act in the light of any of the constitutional provisions so as to render the relevant sections of the Act ultra vi res. 3.

The fact that primacy of the opinion of the Chief Justice or his nominee is accorded by certain statutes by use of the expression "in consultation", which expression has been understood by judicial opinion to confer primacy to the opinion of the Chief Justice, the absence thereof in the Act, by itself, will not render Section 4( 1 )( d) thereof ultra vi res the basic structure of the Constitution. lfthe 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.

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. Whether such primacy should be accorded or not is for the legislature to decide and ifthe legislative opinion engrafted in the present Act is in contrast to what is provided for in other Statute(s), such legislative intention, by itself, cannot be understood to be constitutionally impermissible. 4. Insofar as the appointment of an eminent jurist is concerned, we do not consider it necessary to delve into the issue except to say that the decision being left to a high power body consisting of high Constitutional A functionaries enumerated in Section 4(1 )(a) to 4(1 )( d) of the Act, no exfacie illegality can be discerned in the provisions contained in Section 4( I)( e) of the Act.

Even if the Act is to lay down norms, it would be difficult to understand the same to be all comprehensive, satisfying all concerned. No declaration of infirmity of the provisions contained in B Section 4(l)(e) of the Act can be made on the basis of the grounds urged. 5. Consequently and in the light of the above, we find no merit in this Transferred Case. The writ petition filed by the petitioner-Society is dismissed accordingly. Nidhi Jain Motter dismissed.