Case: Common Cause  A Registered Society Vs. Union of India

4 makes it clear 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. If, at present, the LOP is not available, surely, the Chairperson and the other two Members of the Selection Committee, namely, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India or his nominee may proceed to appoint an eminent jurist as a Member of the Selection Committee under Section 4(1)(e) of the Act. We also do not see any legal disability in a truncated Selection Committee to constitute a Search Committee for preparing a panel of persons for consideration for appointment as the Chairperson and Members of the Lokpal and also for such a truncated Selection Committee to make recommendations to the President of India for appointment of the Chairperson and Members of the Lokpal. True, there is no specific provision akin to sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act insofar as the constitution of the Search Committee by a truncated Selection Committee is concerned. But the absence of such a provision, by itself, will not invalidate the constitution of the Search Committee by the truncated Selection Committee when the Act specifically "empowers" a truncated Selection Committee to make recommendations for appointment of the Chairperson or Members of the Lokpal. To hold otherwise would be self contradictory. 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 view of the Parliamentary Standing Committee with regard to the expediency of the Search/Selection Committee taking decisions when vacancy/vacancies exists/exist is merely an opinion with which the Executive, in the first instance, has to consider and, thereafter, the legislature has to approve. The said opinion of the Parliamentary Standing Committee would therefore not be sacrosanct. The same, in any case, does not have any material bearing on the validity of the existing provisions of the Act.20. A consideration of the other provisions of the Act in respect of which amendments have been proposed, as indicated in the Chart extracted above, and the views of the Parliamentary Standing Committee in this regard which are available in its report, in our considered view, are attempts at streamlining the working of the Act and in no way constitute legal hindrances or bars to the enforcement of the provisions of the Act as it stands today. In this regard, all that the Court would like to say and observe is that such attempts at achieving better results in the working of any statute is a perpetual and ongoing exercise dictated by the experiences gained on the working of the act. Such attempts cannot halt the operation and execution of the law which the Executive in its wisdom has already given effect to and has brought into force by resorting to the provisions of Section 1(4) of the Act.21. At this stage it may not be out of context to notice the stated objects and reasons for the Legislation which highlights its unique character and importance in the contemporary world."The need to have a legislation for Lokpal has been felt for the quite some time. In its interim report on the `Problems of Redressal of Citizens Grievances, submitted in 1966, the Administrative Reforms Commission, inter alia, recommended the setting up of an institution of Lokpal at the Centre. To give effect to this recommendation of the Administrative Reforms Commission, eight Bills on Lokpal were introduced in the Loka Sabha in the past. However, these Bills had lapsed consequent upon the dissolution of the respective Loka Sabha; except in the case of 1985 bill, which was subsequently withdrawn after its introduction.India is committed to pursue the policy of `Zero Tolerance against Corruption. India ratified the United Nations Convention against Corruption by deposit of Instrument of Ratification on the 9th of May, 2011. This Convention imposes a number of obligations, some mandatory, some recommendatory and some optional on the Member States. The Convention, inter alia, envisages that State Parties ensure measures in the domestic law for criminalization of offences relating to bribery and put in place an effective mechanism for its enforcement. The obligations of the Convention, with reference to India, have come into force with effect from the 8thof June, 2011. As a policy of Zero tolerance against Corruption, the Bill seeks to establish in the country, a more effective mechanism to receive complaints relating to allegations of corruption against public servants, including, Ministers, Members of Parliament, Chief Ministers, Members of Legislative Assemblies, public servants and to inquire into them and take follow up actions. The bodies, namely, Lokpal and Lokayuktas which are being set up for the purpose will be constitutional bodies. This setting up of these bodies will further strengthen the existing legal and institutional mechanism thereby facilitating a more effective implementation of some of the obligations under the aforesaid Convention."22. We, therefore, conclude by quoting Justice Krishna Iyer In Reference, the Special Courts Bill, 1978, AIR 1979 SC 478 : (1979) 1 SCC 380 and holding that the Act as it stands today is an eminently workable piece of legislation and there is no justification to keep the enforcement of the Act under suspension till the amendments, as proposed, are carried out."The pathology of our public law, with its class slant, is that an unmincing ombudsman or sentinel on the qui vive with power to act against those in power, now or before, and offering legal access to the informed citizen to complain with immunity does not exist; despite all the bruited umbrage of political performers against peculations and perversions by higher echelons. Law is what law does, not what law says; and the moral gap between word and deed menaces peoples faith in life and law. The tragedy, then, is that democracy becomes a casualty."

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]17. There can be no manner of doubt that the Parliamentary wisdom of seeking changes in an existing law by means of an amendment lies within the exclusive domain of the legislature and it is not the province of the Court to express any opinion on the exercise of the legislative prerogative in this regard. The framing of the Amendment Bill; reference of the same to the Parliamentary Standing Committee; the consideration thereof by the said Committee; the report prepared alongwith further steps that are required to be taken and the time frame thereof are essential legislative functions which should not be ordinarily subjected to interference or intervention of the Court. The constitutional doctrine of separation of powers and the demarcation of the respective jurisdiction of the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary under the constitutional framework would lead the Court to the conclusion that the exercise of the amendment of the Act, which is presently underway, must be allowed to be completed without any intervention of the Court. Any other view and any interference, at this juncture, would negate the basic constitutional principle that the Legislature is supreme in the sphere of law making. Reading down a statute to make it workable in a situation where an exercise of amendment of the law is pending will not be justified either. A perception, however, strong of the imminent need of the lawin the Act and its beneficial effects on the citizenry of a democratic country, by itself, will not permit the Court to overstep its jurisdiction. Judicial discipline must caution the Court against such an approach.A consideration of the other provisions of the Act in respect of which amendments have been proposed, as indicated in the Chart extracted above, and the views of the Parliamentary Standing Committee in this regard which are available in its report, in our considered view, are attempts at streamlining the working of the Act and in no way constitute legal hindrances or bars to the enforcement of the provisions of the Act as it stands today. In this regard, all that the Court would like to say and observe is that such attempts at achieving better results in the working of any statute is a perpetual and ongoing exercise dictated by the experiences gained on the working of the act. Such attempts cannot halt the operation and execution of the law which the Executive in its wisdom has already given effect to and has brought into force by resorting to the provisions of Section 1(4) of the Act.21. At this stage it may not be out of context to notice the stated objects and reasons for the Legislation which highlights its unique character and importance in the contemporaryneed to have a legislation for Lokpal has been felt for the quite some time. In its interim report on the `Problems of Redressal of Citizens Grievances, submitted in 1966, the Administrative Reforms Commission, inter alia, recommended the setting up of an institution of Lokpal at the Centre. To give effect to this recommendation of the Administrative Reforms Commission, eight Bills on Lokpal were introduced in the Loka Sabha in the past. However, these Bills had lapsed consequent upon the dissolution of the respective Loka Sabha; except in the case of 1985 bill, which was subsequently withdrawn after its introduction.India is committed to pursue the policy of `Zero Tolerance against Corruption. India ratified the United Nations Convention against Corruption by deposit of Instrument of Ratification on the 9th of May, 2011. This Convention imposes a number of obligations, some mandatory, some recommendatory and some optional on the Member States. The Convention, inter alia, envisages that State Parties ensure measures in the domestic law for criminalization of offences relating to bribery and put in place an effective mechanism for its enforcement. The obligations of the Convention, with reference to India, have come into force with effect from the 8thof June, 2011. As a policy of Zero tolerance against Corruption, the Bill seeks to establish in the country, a more effective mechanism to receive complaints relating to allegations of corruption against public servants, including, Ministers, Members of Parliament, Chief Ministers, Members of Legislative Assemblies, public servants and to inquire into them and take follow up actions. The bodies, namely, Lokpal and Lokayuktas which are being set up for the purpose will be constitutional bodies. This setting up of these bodies will further strengthen the existing legal and institutional mechanism thereby facilitating a more effective implementation of some of the obligations under the aforesaid Convention.We, therefore, conclude by quoting Justice Krishna Iyer In Reference, the Special Courts Bill, 1978, AIR 1979 SC 478   : (1979) 1 SCC 380     and holding that the Act as it stands today is an eminently workable piece of legislation and there is no justification to keep the enforcement of the Act under suspension till the amendments, as proposed, are carriedpathology of our public law, with its class slant, is that an unmincing ombudsman or sentinel on the qui vive with power to act against those in power, now or before, and offering legal access to the informed citizen to complain with immunity does not exist; despite all the bruited umbrage of political performers against peculations and perversions by higher echelons. Law is what law does, not what law says; and the moral gap between word and deed menaces peoples faith in life and law. The tragedy, then, is that democracy becomes a