A three judge bench led by Chief Justice of India T S Thakur expressed surprise at the Modi government’s reluctance to appoint an independent ombudsman against corruption; it also observed that the law to have Lokpal was passed after a prolonged struggle by civil society and it must become functional regardless whether the incumbent government wants it or notThe Supreme Court on Wednesday, November 23, questioned the Centre for dragging its feet in appointing “corruption ombudsman” Lokpal and observed that the Lokpal law could not be rendered ineffective due to the delay in taking decision by the government on the status of the Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice T.S. Thakur, Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and L. Nageswara Rao, hearing a writ petition filed by NGO Common Cause challenging the provisions of Lokpal Act and its Rules, said the law should be made workable and taken to its logical end.
The CJI told attorney-general Mukul Rohatgi, “You (government) seem to be always interested in cleansing the system, then why are you dragging your feet. Appointment of Lokpal is in the right direction. The Lokpal which is intended to bring probity in public life must be allowed to work whether you amend the law or not.”
The bench asked the attorney-general the reasons for the delay of three years in carrying out the necessary amendment to the Act. The AG said an amendment bill was introduced in Parliament and later it was sent to the standing committee which suggested some changes and the bill is still pending. The AG submitted that the Centre was reviewing the entire Lokpal Act and the rules.
The bench pointed out that the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 were passed in December 2013 and they became a law in January, 2014. “We will interpret the rules in a manner to make it functional, till Parliament could amend the rules,” the CJI observed. The AG told the bench that such a move would mean that the court is legislating which Parliament alone can do. It was after a mass upsurge and movement led by Anna Hazare and then joined by others that the Lokpal movement had gained ground in 2011.
Earlier, senior advocate Shanti Bhushan, representing the petitioner Common Cause, submitted that the court should interpret the Act, to bring Lokpal into existence expeditiously, as the political class has not shown any interest in carrying out the necessary amendments to the Act, to make it functional. Saying that the Act was passed in 2013 after a long anti-corruption crusade led by Anna Hazare, Shanti Bhushan asked “Do we need another Anna Andolan to bring Lokpal into being?”
The CJI pointed out that the “selection committee” has not been duly constituted because the selection committee, comprising the Prime Minister, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the Leader of the Opposition, Chief Justice of India could not meet to select an eminent person in the panel which will form the search committee to select Lokpal and other Members.
Maintaining that it would not let Lokpal become “a dead letter” or “redundant”, the Supreme Court Wednesday questioned the Central government why it has not appointed the anti-corruption ombudsman in the last two years if it was really concerned about checking corruption and bringing probity in public life. A bench led by Chief Justice of India T S Thakur observed that the law to have Lokpal was passed after a prolonged struggle by civil society and it must become functional regardless whether the incumbent government wants it or not.
Seeking a deadline from Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi on when the institution would become functional, the bench asked him: “Was it not to be considered as an emergent situation by the government that despite the Lokpal Act becoming a reality in 2014, there is no Lokpal in place? If it is about cleansing the system, which you say this government is concerned about, then why in the last two years you could not make this work? We will not allow a situation where an institution like Lokpal becomes redundant.”
Following this submission, the bench posed a volley of questions to the AG, questioning the intent of the government in having a Lokpal. “If you could do (amend LoP) it for four other enactments so conveniently, what is the problem in doing it for this Act? You claim you are committed to appointing a Lokpal and you have also moved an amendment to this effect so in our opinion, you should welcome a judgment from this court if that expedites everything,” it told Rohatgi.
But the AG said that it would tantamount to the court legislating, which was the Parliament’s role. “But you are not legislating…if Lokpal is meant to be an institution to bring probity in public life and bring down corruption then it must be working regardless whether the government wants it or not or whether amendments have been cleared. This court will read down the related provision to see that it becomes functional. We will not allow a situation where an institution like Lokpal becomes redundant,” it said.
The bench added: “We think that instead of giving an impression that you are dragging your feet, you should come forward and invite an order from the court so that Lokpal starts working. Why do you want people to have a misgiving that government is not interested in having a Lokpal. Ideally, you should do it yourself (by amending the law). But what you have done conveniently in four other enactments, you are not doing it here so accepting your own position, we should have no difficulty in reading down the statute.”
The AG resisted an order from the court, saying amendment in a law was within the ambit of the Parliament and that he was not in a position to commit a time frame for the amendment to be passed. At this, the bench asked him to take proper instructions from competent authorities and revert on December 7.