“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 vires the basic structure of the Constitution.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFERRED CASE(C) NO.25/2015

JUST SOCIETY …PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA …RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T
RANJAN GOGOI, J.
1. 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 of India. The challenge in the aforesaid transferred case
(No.25 of 2015) is primarily founded on the ground that the Chief Justice
of India 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 Justice of India or his nominee judge has no
primacy in the matter of 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 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 of an ’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 vires.
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 vires the
basic structure of the Constitution. 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. 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 if the 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 functionaries enumerated in Section 4(1)(a) to 4(1)(d) of
the Act, no ex-facie illegality can be discerned in the provisions
contained in Section 4(1)(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 Section 4(1)(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.

………………..,J.
(RANJAN GOGOI)
………………..,J.
(NAVIN SINHA)

NEW DELHI
APRIL 27, 2017