COMMON CAUSE : A REGISTERED SOCIETY versus UNION OF INDIA
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 291, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Arguments
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 291 
COMMON CAUSE : A REGISTERED SOCIETY 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 245of2014) 
APRIL 27, 2017 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 - ss.4(2) and 4(J)(e) -
Search Committee (Constitution, Terms and Conditions of 
Appointment of Members and the Manner of Selection of Panel of c 
Names for Appointment of Chairperson and Members of Lokpal) 
Rules, 2014- rr.10(1) and 10(4)(i)- Writ petition.filed by NGO 
seeking declaration that rd 0(1) and 10(4)(i) are ultra vires and 
direction to restrain initiation of any process of selection for 
appointment of Chairperson and Members of the Lokpal under the 
said Rules - Submission that the provisions of the Act are yet to be 
D 
implemented and Selection Committee/Search Committee under the 
Act are yet to be constituted so as to firrther the appointment of the 
Chairperson and Members of the Lokpal - Submission of the 
Government that there was an attempt to implement the Act, but in 
view of certain inconsistencies in the provisions, Amendment Bill 
E 
was necessitated - On appeal, held: Act as it stands today is an 
eminently work.able piece of legislation - No justification to keep 
the enforcement of the Act under suspension till the amendments, as 
proposed, are carried out -Amendments are attempts at streamlining 
the working of the Act and constitute no legal hindrances to the 
enforcement of the Act - Principle that a law duly enacted and F 
enforced must
be given effect to ·will have to prevail and appropriate 
directions will have to be issued by the court to the said effect -
s.4(2) makes it clear that the appointment of Chairperson or a 
Member of the Lokpal will not become invalid merely because of 
any vacancy in the Selection Committee - if. at present, Leader of G 
opposition-LOP is not available, Chairperson and other two 
Members of SelectionCommittee may proceed to appoint eminent 
jurist as Member of Selection Committee u/s.4(l)(e) - No legal 
disability in a truncated Selection Committee to constitute a Search 
Committee for preparing a panel of persons for consideration for 
H 
291
292 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS · 
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
appointment as Chairperson and Members of Lokpal and also for 
such truncated Selection Committee to make recomm~ndations to 
President of India for appointment of Chairperson and Members 
of Lokpal - Amendment Bill [Lokpal and Lokayuktas and Other 
Related Law (Amendment) Bill, 2014]. 
· 
B 
Separation of powers - Legislative functions - Interference 
by the Court - Held: 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 
C this regard - Essential legislative functions not to be ordinarily 
subjected to interference by the Court - Amendment of the Act must 
be allowed to be completed without any intervention of the Court -
Court not to overstep its jurisdiction - Judicial discipline must 
caution the Court against such approach - Judicial discipline. 
D 
Allowing the writ petitions and the transferred cases, the 
Court 
HELD: 1.1 The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 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. 
E 
[Para 22)[311-B] 
In Reference, the Special Courts Bill, 1978 [1979] 2 
SCR 476 : AIR 1979 SC 478 : 1979 (1) sec 380 -
referred to. 
F 
1.2. It is clear that
Amendment Bill-Lokpal and Lokayuktas 
and ·Other Related Law (Amendment) Bill, 2014 seeks the 
inclusion of Leader of the largest Opposition Party in Lok Sabha 
in the Selection Committee, in lieu of Leader of Opposition in 
the present House of People/Lok Sabha-LOP. The proposed 
amendments also seek to limit the tenure of the eminent jurist, 
G as a Member of the Selection Committee. There is also an explicit 
recital of the fact that the absence of any Member of the Selection 
Committee (or a vacancy in the post of any Member) will not 
invalidate the recommendations of the Selection· Committee for 
appointment of the Chairperson or Member of the Lokpal or the 
H appointment of the eminent jurist. Similarly, appointment of a
COMMON CAUSE : A REGISTERED SOCIETY v. UNION OF 
293 
INDIA 
Member of the Search Committee or the proceedings of the said A 
Committee will not be invalid by reason of either the absence of 
a Member of the Search Committee or a vacancy in the Selection 
Committee. The other provisions of the Act relate to certain 
incidental matters under the Act, like, rank of Secretary to the 
Lokpal; rank of Director of Inquiry and Director of Prosecution B 
of Lokpal; disclosure of assets and liabilities by public servants; 
seat of Lokpal; eligibility criteria for appointment of Director of 
Prosecution; and the provisions relating to resolution of 
difference(s) of opinion between the Directors. [Para 14][306-A-
D] 
· Vipulbhai M Choudhary vs. Gujarat Coop. Milk Mktg. 
Federation Ltd. (2015] 3 SCR 997 : 2015 (8) SCC 1 -
referred to· 
c 
1.3 While the Parliamentary Standing Committee had made 
various recommendations in respect of the proposed 
amendments, so far as the amendment relating to substitution of D 
the LOP by the Leader of the sin~le largest opposition party in 
the Lok Sabha is concerned, the Parliamentary Standing 
Committee had approved the proposed amendment. Insofar as 
the discharge of functions by the Search/Selection Committee in 
a situation where there exits a vacancy, the Parliamentary Standing 
E 
Committee is of the view that the Sean:h/Selection Committee 
should not take any decision unless the vacancy in the Search/ 
Selection Committee is filled up.
Rather, it is suggested that 
provisions should be made in the Amendment Bill for filling up 
sut:h vacancy/vacancies at the earliest. The rest of the 
rec;ommendations of the Committee would not be very material 
F 
·to .decide the question arising in view of the very nature of the 
subjects to which the same relate, which would be evident from a 
cursory glance of the subjects delineated in the Chart extracted 
from the Parliamentary Standing Committee report. [Para 151 [306-
E-G] 
Common Cause vs. Union of India & Ors. [2003] 4 
Suppl. SCR 471: 2003 (8) SCC 250 - referred to. 
1.4 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 
G 
H
294 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
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 
B 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 
C 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 
D 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 law en-grafted in 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 
E 
discipline
must caution the Court against such approach. [Para 
17)(307-C-GI 
1.5 If the Act, as it exists, is otherwise workable and the 
amendment sought to be introduced by the Legislature is aimed 
at a more efficient working of some of the provisions of the Act, 
F 
the wholesome principle that a law duly enacted and enforced 
must be given effect to will have to prevail and appropriate 
directions will have to be issued by the Court to the said effect. 
[Para 18] [308-B-C] 
Utkal Contractors and Joinery Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs. 
G 
State of Orissa and Others [19871 3 SCR 317: AIR 
1987 SC 1454 :1987 (3) SCC 279 - referred to. 
1.6 Sub-section (2) of Section 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 
H the Selection Committee. If, at present, the LOP is not available,
COMMON CAUSE : A REGISTERED SOCIETY v. UNION OF 
295 
INDIA 
surely, the Chairperson and the other two Members of the A 
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(l)(e) of the Act. No legal disability is seen 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 
B 
to sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act insofar as the constitution C 
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 D 
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. [Para 19][309-A-FI 
E 
F 
1.7 A consideration of the other provisions of the Act in 
respect of which amendments have been proposed, as indicated G 
in the Chart extracted and the views of the Parliamentary Standing 
Committee in this regard which ,are available in its report, are 
attempts at streamlining the working of the Act and in no way 
constitute legal hindrances or bars to the enforcement of the 
H
296 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 3 S.C.R. 
A provisions of the Act as it stands today. 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 
B given effect to and has brought into force by resorting to the 
provisions of Section 1(4) of the Act. [Para 20][309-G-H; 310-A-
B] 
Case Law Reference 
[2015) 3 SCR 997 
referred to 
Para9 
c 
[2003) 4 Suppl. SCR 471 
referred to 
Para 16 
[1987) 3 SCR 317 
referred to 
Para 18 
[1979) 2 SCR 476 
referred to 
Para 22 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 245 
D of2014 
E 
WITH 
T. C. (C) No. 10 of2017 @T. P. (C) No. 1264 of2014 
W. P. (C) No. 673 of2015 
T.C. (C) No. 109 of2015. 
Mukul Rohatgi, AG, Maninder Singh, ASG, A. Mariarputhalil, AG 
(Sikkim), Nalin Kohli, D. K. Thakur, (HP), Sanchar Anand, Ms. Kiran 
Bala Sahay, AAGs, Shanti Bhushan, Vikas Singh, B. Prabakaran, Sr. 
Advs, Prashant Bhushan, Kartiketh, Rohit Kumar Singh, Ms. Sushma 
F Suri,Abhay Nevagi, Krishan Kumar, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Zeeshan 
Diwan, Ms. Pooja 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 I}umar, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Abhinav Mukerji, 
G Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Ms.
Purnima Krishna, Aniruddha P. Mayee, A. Selvin 
Raja, Devendra Singh, Anlcit Roy, lndrajeet 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. :Amna Mathur, 
Avneesh Arputham, Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Amit Arora (for Mis 
H Arputham Aruna & Co.), Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Jesal Wahi,
COMMON CAUSE : A REGISTERED SOCIETY v. UNION OF 
297 
INDIA 
Ms. Puja Singh, Ms. Mamta Singh, V. K. Sharma, Ms. Pragati Neekhra, 
A 
Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Sukrit R. Kapoor, Nitya Madhusoodhanan, 
Shishir Deshpande, Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Salvador Santosh Rebello, 
Anurag Sharma, Ms. K. Enatoli Serna, Edward Belho, Amit Kumar Singh, 
Ranjan Mukherjee, S. Bhowmick, Suvendu Suvasis Das, Apoorv Singhal, 
Anant K. Vatsya, Narsingh N. Rai, Kuldip Singh, M. Shoeb Alam, 
B 
Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Ujjwal Singh, Mojahid Karim Khan, Tapesh Kumar 
Singh, Mohd. Waquas, Aditya Pratap Singh, Ms. Priyanka, 
Ms. Priyadarshni Priya, Sarad Kumar Singhaia, Ms. Noopur Singhal, 
Sanjay Kumar Visen,. Rajaram Narayanan, P. Jegan, Arnn Singh, 
V. J. Usha, Ms. Divya, Ms. Sujatha, R.V. Kameshwaran, Advs. for the 
appearing parties. 
C 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RANJAN GOGOi, J. l. Writ Petition (Civil) No.245 of 2014 
has been filed seeking a declaration that Rule 10(1) and Rule 10(4)(i) of 
the Search Committee (Constitution, Terms and Conditions of 
Appointment of Members and the Manner of Selection of Panel of D 
Names for Appointment of Chairperson and Members of Lokpal) Rules, 
2014 (hereinafter referred to as the "Search Committee Rules") framed 
under the provisions of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (hereinafter 
referred to as "the Act") are ultra vires and for a further direction to 
restrain the initiation of any process of selection for appointment of E 
Chairperson and
Members of the Lokpal under the provisions of the 
aforesaid Search Committee Rules. 
2. There is no manner of doubt that the aforesaid grievance of the 
writ petitioner has been taken care of by the Search Committee 
(Amendment) Rules, 2014 which has deleted the following words in 
F 
sub-rule (I) of Rule 10: 
"from amongst the list of persons provided by the Central 
Government in the Department of Personnel and Training" 
Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Search Committee Rules has also 
been since deleted. 
G 
3. Notwithstanding the above, it is urged on behalf of the writ 
petitioner that the provisions of the Act are yet to be implemented and 
the Selection Committee/Search Committee under the Act are yerto be 
constituted so as to further the appointment of the Chairperson and 
Members of the Lokpal. 
H
298 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
4. As in the connected case i.e. Writ Petition No.673 of2015 filed 
by Youth for Equality the prayers made are precisely to the above effect, 
we have permitted the learned counsel for the writ petitioner in Writ 
Petition (Civil).No.245 of 2014 to address the Court on the aforesaid 
issue also. 
B 
5. The reliefs sought in Transferred Case No.109 of2015 and in 
c 
Transferred Case arising out of Transfer Petition (Civil) No.1264 of 
2014 are same and similar to those made in Writ Petition (Civil) No.245 
of2014. 
6. Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel, who has advanced 
the lead arguments, has submitted that the Act had been brought into 
force on l 61h January, 2014 by a notification issued in the Official Gazette 
by the Government of lndia. Despite efflux of a long period of time the 
provisions of the Act have not been implemented. It is argued that 
though the version of the official respondents is that certain provisions 
of the Act need to be altered to make the provisions thereof workable in 
D a meaningful manner, the very fact that the Amendment Bill {Lokpal 
and Lokayuktas and Other Related Law (Amendment) Bill, 2014] has 
been gathering dust from the date of its introduction in the Parliament 
(18'
11 December, 2014) would sufficiently demonstrate the lack of 
executive/legislative will to give effect to a salutary enactment encgrafting 
E a vital requirement of democratic functioning of the
Government,.namely, 
accountability of the political executive and those in high echelons of 
public office, to an independent body i.e. Lokpal. Shri Shanti Bhushan 
has also urged that incongruities, inconsistencies and inadequacies in the 
Act as perceived by the respondents are primarily with regafd to the 
F 
absence of a Leader of Opposition in the present House of People/Lok 
Sabha (herein;ifter referred to as "LOP") who is also to act as a Member 
of the Selection Committee under Section 4 of the Act. This, according 
to Shri Bhushan, is a pretence and/or sham inasmuch as by Section 2 of 
the Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 
1977 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1977Act") the term' Leader of the 
G Opposition" is defined to mean as under: 
H 
"2. Definition.- In this Act, "Leader of the Opposition'', in relation 
to either House of Parliament, means that member of the Council 
of States or the House of the People, as the case may be, who is, 
for the time being, the· Leader in .that House of the Party in 
opposition to the Government having the greatest numerical strength
COMMON CAUSE : A REGISTERED SOCIETY v. UNION OF 
299 
INDIA [RANJAN GOGOI, J.] 
and recognised as such by the Chairman of the Council of States A 
or the Speaker of the House of the People, as the case may be. 
Explanation.- Where there are two or more parties in opposition 
to the Government, in the Council of States or in tht: House of the 
People having the same numerical strength, the Chairman of the 
Council of States or the Speaker of the House of the People, as 
B 
the case may be, shall, having regard to the status of the parties, 
recognise any one of the Leaders of such parties as the Leader 
of the Opposition for the purposes of this section and such 
recognition shall be final and conclusive. 
Shri Bhushan submits that the aforesaid provision could have been c 
easily adopted by the Government of India to clarify the situation in the 
event any ambiguity is felt. Shri Bhushan has specifically pointed out to 
the Court the provisions of Section 62 of the Act which enables the 
Government oflndia to so act. As such an exercise was not undertaken 
within a period of two years as required, the time frame therefor, is now 
over. Shri Bhushan has pointed out that for reasons which are not known, 
D 
the respondents are not interested in implementing the provisions of the 
Act. Therefore, necessary directions should be issued by the Court and 
appropriate orders need to be passed. 
7. Supporting the arguments made by Shri Shanti Bhushan, Shri 
Gopal Sankaranarayana,
learned counsel for the writ petitioners in Writ 
E 
Petition (Civil) No.673 of2015 has drawn the attention of the Court to 
the relevant provisions of the other statutes, namely, Right to Information 
Act, 2005, Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, etc. to point out 
that in all the aforesaid statutes it has been provided that in case there is 
no LOP available, it is the Leader of the Party in Opposition to the 
F 
Government, which has the greatest strength of Members, who is deemed 
to be the Leader of the Opposition. It is also pointed out by the learned 
counsel that under Section 4(2) of the Act the appointment of the 
Chairperson or a Member of the Lokpal shall not be invalid merely on 
account of any vacancy in the Selection Committee. It is, therefore, 
urged that even in the absence of the LOP it is open for .the Selection G 
Committee to proceed with the constitution of the Search Committee. 
Same would be the position with regard to the appointment of the eminent. 
jurist who is required to be appointed as a Member of the Selection 
·Committee by the other Members of the Selection Committee 
enumerated under Section 4( 1 )(a) Jo ( d) of the Act. The absence of the 
H.
300 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 
A LOP, therefore, need not detain the constitution of the Selection 
Committee and the discharge offunctions by the Committee. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
9. It is further argued by the learned counsel that as legislative 
action is not forthcoming to give effect to the provisions of the Amending 
Bill, this Court should read down the provisions of Section 4( 1 )( c) of 
the Act to understand that the LOP mentioned in the said provisions of 
the Act means the leader of the single largest opposition party in either 
House of Parliament. Reading down of the provisions of the statute, in 
the above manner, would be justified to give effect to the statute. In this 
regard, reliance has been placed on the following observations contained 
in paragraph 26 and 46 of the decision of this Court in Vipulbhai M. 
Choudharv vs. Gujarat Coop. Milk Mkt1 
Federation Ltd. 1 which 
are extracted below: 
"26. Where the Constitution has conceived a particular strncture 
on certain institutions, the legislative bodies are bound to mould 
the statutes accordingly. Despite the constitutional mandate, if 
the legislative body concerned does not carry out the required 
strnctural changes in the statutes, then, it is the duty of the court 
to provide the statute with the meaning as per the Constitution. 
"The job of the Supreme Court is not to expound the meaning of 
the constitution but to provide it with meaning"[Walter Berns, 
'Government by lawyers and
judges', Commentary, June, 1987, 
18.] The reference obviously is to United States Supreme Court. 
As a general rnle of interpretation, no doubt, nothing is to be added 
to or taken from a statute. However, when there are adequate 
grounds to justify an inference, it is the bounden duty of the court 
to do so. 
" .. .It is a corollary to the general rnle of literal constrnction 
that nothing is to be added to or taken from a statue unless 
there are adequate grounds to justify the inference that the 
legislature intended something which it omitted to 
express"[Maxwell on The Interpretation of Statues (I 2'h Edn.) 
33.]. 
According to Lord Mersey inThompson (Pauper) v. Goold and 
Co.[[1910] A.C. 409. (HL]: (AC p.420) 
" .. .It is a strong thing to read into an Act or Parliament words, 
1 (2015) 8 sec 1
COMMON CAUSE : A REGISTERED SOCIETY v. UNION OF 
301 
INDIA [RANJAN GOGOI, J.] 
which are not there, and in the absence of clear necessity, it is 
A 
wrong to do". 
In the case of cooperative societies, after the Ninety Seventh 
Amendment, it has become a clear or strong necessity to do the 
strong thing of reading into the legislation, the constitutional 
mandate of the cooperative societies to be governed as democratic 
B 
institutions.· 
45 ... The constitutional provisions have to be construed broadly 
and liberally having regard to the changed circumstances and 
the needs of time and polity''[The Constitutional Bench decision 
in State of W.B. v.Committee for Protection of Democratic 
Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571, p.591, para 45: (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 
401] 
* * * 
46. ln the background of the constitutional mandate, the question 
c 
is not what the statute does say but what the statute must say. If D 
the Act or the Rules or the Bye-laws do not say what they should 
say in terms of the Constitution, it is the duty of the court to read 
the constitutional spirit and concept into the Acts .... "In so far as 
in itsAct Parliament does not convey its intention clearly, expressly 
and completely, it is taken to require the enforcement agencies 
who are charged with the duty of applying legislation to spell out 
the detail of its legal meaning. This may be done either- (a) by 
finding and declaring implications in the words used by the 
legislator, or (b) by regarding the breadth
or other obscurity of the 
express language as conferring a delegated legislative power to 
elaborate its meaning in accordance with public policy (including 
legal policy) and the purpose of the legislation"[Bennion on 
Statutory Interpretation by Francis Bennion, (61h Edn.)136]." 
E 
F 
I 0. In reply, Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General has 
submitted that in the present case the Congress Party had claimed the 
post of LOP in the present Lok Sabha. However, the said claim was 
G 
rejected by the Hon'ble Speaker on the ground that as per parameters 
of parliamentary convention and practice, the Congress Party does not 
have the requisite I 0% strength of the total membership of the House of 
the People i.e. Lok Sabha to be entitled to have its leader in the Lok 
Sabha to be recognized as the Leader of the Opposition. Shri Rohatgi in 
H
302 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 
A this regard has relied upon a publication of the Lok Sabha Secretariat 
which is to the following effect: 
"At present, there is n<,> recognized Leader of Opposition in Lok 
Sabha." 
11. Shri Rohatgi has submitted that the provisions of the 1977 Act 
8 
cannot, by itself, constitute to be a part of the Act in question. It is 
' 
submitted that the implementation of the provisions of the Act was 
attempted but certain difficulties arising from some inadequate and 
inconsistent provisions thereof came to the fore which necessitated the 
Amendment Bill. Referring to the Bill, the learned Attorney General has 
c submitted that the Bill seeks to comprehensively amend different 
provisions of the Act to facilitate the smooth working of the institution 
brought into force under the Act. 
12. It will be necessary at this stage to take note of the salient 
features of the Amendment Bill along with a very brief description of 
o the other amendments of the different provisions of the Act which is 
presently pending legislative consideration. The principal amendn'·~nts 
which will require a specific notice are those contained in Section.'! of 
the Amendment Bill seeking to amend Section 4 [clause ( c) and ciduse 
(e) of sub-section (l); sub-section (2) and sub-section (3)] of the Act in 
the manner stated below: 
E 
F 
G 
H 
"2. In the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred 
to as the principal Act) in section 4,-
(a) in
sub-section(l),-
(i) for clause ( c ), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:-
'( c) the Leader of Opposition recognised as such in the House of 
the People or where there is no such Leader of Opposition, then, 
the Leader of the single largest Opposition Party in that House -
Member.'; 
(ii) after clause ( e ), the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:-
' Provided that the eminent jurist shall be nominated for a period 
of three years and shall not be eligible for re-nomination.'; 
(b) for sub-section (2), the following sub-section shall be substituted, 
namely:-
COMMON CAUSE : A REGISTERED SOCIETY v. UNION OF 
303 
INDIA (RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
· '(2) No appointment of a Chairperson or a Member or the 
A 
nomination of an eminent jurist shall be invalid merely by reason 
of any vacancy or absence of a Member in the Selection 
Committee.'; 
( c) in sub-section (3), after the second proviso, the following proviso 
shall be inserted, namely:-
B 
'Provided also that no appointment of a person in the Search 
Committee or the proceedings of the Search Committee shall be 
invalid merely by reason of any vacancy or absence of a Member 
in the Selection Committee or absence of a person in the Search 
Committee, as the case may be.' 
C 
13. The Amendment Bill was referred to the Parliamentary 
Standing Committee on 25'h December, 2014 after it was introduced in 
the Lok Sabha on I8'h December, 2014. Thereafter, on 3n1 December, 
2015, the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee was submitted. 
The following extract from the report would indicate the relevant Sections 
D 
in respect of which amendments have been proposed and the extent 
thereof. 
S.'.'\o. Area of 
Provision in 
Relennt 
Provisions Relennt I::xtent of 
concern 
the Lokpol and Section 
in the Bill 
Clause 
Amendment 
Lokayn1.ias 
proposed 
Act,2013 & 
E 
Delhi Special 
Police 
I:stablishment 
Act, 1946 
L 
Composition Prime Minimr, 4(1) of 
Prime 
2(a)(j) 
Inclusion of 
of Selection Chief Justice of Lokpal and Minister. 
Leaderof 
Committee hldia or Judge Lokayuktas Chief
Justice 
largest 
F 
of Supreme 
Act,2013 
of India or 
Opposition 
Court. Speaker, 
Judge of 
Party in Lok 
Lok Sabha, 
Supreme 
Sabha in lieu 
Leader of 
Court, 
ofLeaderof 
Opposition, 
Speaker, 
Opposition in 
Lok Sabha and 
Lok Sabha, 
LokSabhain 
eminent jurist 
Leader of 
Selection 
largest 
Comminee. 
G 
OJ:!J:!Osition 
Pam-, Lok 
Sabha and 
eminent 
jurist 
H
304 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
2. 
Tenure of 
No mention of 
4(1Xe)of 
Fixedtenureof 
2(b) 
Limiting t•nure of 
eminent jurist in tenure 
Lokpaland thmyms'lith 
eminent jurist to lingle 
Selection 
Lokayul.1a5 no renomination 
term in the Selection 
Committu 
Act, 2013 
Committee 
3. 
Proceedings of Proceedings not 4(2)of 
Noinnlidation 2(b) 
To validate the 
Search and 
to be innlidated Lok-pal and of proceedings 
& 
promdingsofSearch 
Selection 
due to vacancy in Lokayul.-w of Search and 
c(c) 
and Selection 
B 
Committee 
the Selection 
Act, 2013 
Selection 
Committee in the 
Search 
Commiltee due 
e,·ent ofabotnceor 
Committee 
to vacancy or 
~ofany 
absence therein. 
member arisingtherein 
in future. 
c 
4. 
Rank of 
Smetaryto 
lO(l)of 
Additional 
3(a) 
Rank reduced 
Secretary to 
Government of 
Lokpaland Smetary to 
Lok-pal 
India 
Lokayuktas Govemment of 
Act 2013 
India 
5. 
Rank of 
Additional 
lO(l)of 
Joint Secreta~; 
J(b) 
Rank reduced by one 
Director of 
Secretary to 
Lokpaland to Go,·emment 
level 
D 
lnquiry and 
Government of 
Lokayul.1a3 of India 
Director of 
India 
Act, 2013 
Prosecurion of 
Lok-pal 
6. 
Di.<closure of 
All Public 
44(1)& 
Public s&ants 
6(a) 
Immonble assets 
assets and 
mvantsto 
44(2)of 
to dedarethe (U 
acquired by the public 
liabi!itie; by 
dedareamts 
Lokpaland innnovable 
mvant\lhetherin 
E 
publicsetvanl! andliabilities of Lokayukw amt!o\\ned 
his:hernameorin the 
self, !pouse and 
Act 2013 
acquired! 
name ohny
family 
dependent 
inherited by the 
memberonny other 
childrenin the 
public mnnt in 
pmonto be declared 
mannerpmided 
lfil'hername, in 
Movable assttsofonly 
tllldertheAct 
thenamtofany 
public mnnt io be 
F 
11ithin30daysof 
member of 
declmd. 
the Act coming 
his;herfamily or 
into force to their 
in the name of 
Competent 
anvother 
Authority and to 
pefion; (ii) 
file.Annual 
mo1·able 
Return of 
property o"ned' 
movable and 
acquired' 
G 
immovable assets 
inherited by 
andliabilitie< of 
himher and; (rii) 
>elf, spouse and 
Debts and other 
dependent 
liabilities 
children as on 31" 
incurred by 
H 
Marchby31" 
him her directly
COMMON CAUSE : A REGISTERED SOCIETY v. UNION OF 
305 
INDIA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
to the Competent 
Such dedaration 
A 
Authoritp\luch 
to be made to 
ii to be put in 
Competent 
publk domain by 
Authority wider 
3!•Augustof 
Act Rule~ 
thatym 
Regulatiom 
gornning their 
appointment 
B 
election. TI1e 
Competent 
Authority to 
publish the 
dedarationfiltd 
bypublirnrvam 
inprmribed 
c 
manner by 31 • 
August of that 
year. 
1 
SeatofLok11ill New Delhi 
16(Qof 
NCRofDelhi 
~ 
To facilitate iettingup of 
'· 
Lokpaland 
Headquarters in the NCR 
D 
Lokayuh-W 
ofDelhi. 
Act)O!l 
S. 
Eligibility 
Rank of Director 4BAOF 
Indian Legal 
9(a) 
Makes the eligibility 
Criteria of 
of Prosecution is 
DSPEAc~ Smice Officer 
criteria more stringent. 
Director of 
Joint Secret:uy to 1946 
eli~ble to be 
Alloll's only officers 
l'rosecution 
Gil\' emment of 
appointedn 
l\ith legal badgrowidto 
(DoP)ofCBl 
India 
Special Public 
head the prosecution 
E 
Prosecutor. In 
wing of the Central 
abienceofsuch 
Bumuofln,·eitigation 
office~an 
advocate having 
atlmtl~yms 
of practice, and 
. 
experitnce in 
, F 
handling 
Go'lemment 
camrelatingto 
off!nmrelated 
to economic 
offences and 
corruption. 
G 
9. 
Diffmnceof 
No provision 
4BAof 
Tobesettledby 9(b) 
New provision. 
opinion bet"·"n 
DSPEAct, 
Attorney 
Directo~ and 
1946 
General for India 
Director of 
1\i1ose decL•fon 
prosecution of 
would be 
CBI 
binding 
H
306 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
14. From the above, it is clear that Amendment Bill seeks the 
inclusion of Leader of the largest Opposition Party in Lok Sabha in the 
Selection Committee, in lieu of LOP. The proposed amendments also 
seek to limit the tenure of the eminent jurist, as a Member of the Selection 
Committee. There is also an explicit recital of the fact that the absence 
B of any Member of the Selection Committee (or a vacancy in the post of 
any Member) will not invalidate the recommendations of the Selection 
Committee for appointment of the Chairperson or Member of the Lokpal 
or the appointment of the eminent jurist. Similarly, appointment of a 
Member of the Search Committee or the proceedings of the said 
Committee will not be invalid by reason of either the absence of a Member 
C of the Search Committee or a vacancy in the Selection Committee. The 
other provisions of the Act relate to certain incidental matters under the 
Act,hke, rank of Secretary to the Lokpal; rank of Director of Inquiry 
and Director of Prosecution of Lokpal; disclosure of assets and liabilities 
by public servants; seat of Lokpal; eligibility criteria for appointment of 
D Director of Prosecution; and the provisions relating to resolution of 
difference(s) of opinion between the Director and the Director of 
Prosecution of CIH. 
15. While the Parliamentary Standing Committee had made various 
recommendations in respect of the proposed amendments, so far as the
amendment relating to substitution of the LOP by the Leader of the 
E single largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha is concerned, the 
Parliamentary Standing Committee had approved the proposed 
amendment. Insofar as the discharge of functions by the Search/ 
Selection Committee in a situation where there exits a vacancy, the 
Parliamentary Standing Committee is of the view that the Search/ 
F 
Selection Committee should not take any decision unless the vacancy in 
the Search/Selection Committee is filled up. Rather, it is suggested that 
provisions should be made in the Amendment Bill for filling up such 
vacancy/vacancies at the earliest. The rest of the recommendations of 
the Committee would not be very material to decide the question arising 
in view of the very nature of the subjects to which the same relate, 
G which would be evident from a cursory glance of the subjects delineated 
above in the Chart extracted from the report ofthe Parliamentary Standing 
Committee. 
H 
16. As noticed, the report of the Parliamentary Standing 
Committee is dated 3rd December, 2015. In the hearing of the cases that
COMMON CAUSE : A REGISTERED SOCIETY v. UNION OF 
307 
INDIA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
took place on 28tl1 March, 2017, Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney A 
General for India has submitted that at present the report of the 
Parliamentary Standing Committee is under scrutiny of the Government 
and it is possible that the same may be taken up for consideration by 
Parliament in the Monsoon Session of the current year. Relying on 
several pronouncements of this Court, Shri Rohatgi has submitted that 
B 
there can be no direction to the Legislature to frame any law or to amend 
the existing law or to complete a legislative exercise within any time 
frame. As there can be no serious dispute on the above proposition(s) 
of law it will not be necessary to burden this order with a detailed 
reference to the judgments relied on except to refer, illustratively, to the 
judgment of this Court in Common Cause vs. Union o(india & Ors. 2• 
C 
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 
D 
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 
E 
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 law en-grafted 
in 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 cau.tion the Court against such an approach. 
18. But that is not all; there is a further question that would require 
an answer. The question is whether the Act, as it exists, sans the 
' (2003) s sec 2so 
F 
G 
H
308 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 
A amendment proposed, is so unworkable that the Court should refuse 
enforcement thereof notwithstanding that the Act has come into force 
by Notification dated 16"' January, 2014 issued under Section 1(4) of the 
Act. If the Act, as it exists, is otherwise workable and the amendment 
sought to be introduced by the Legislature is aimed at a more efficient 
B working of some of the provisions of the Act, the wholesome principle 
that a law duly enacted and enforced must be given effect to will have 
to prevail and appropriate directions will have to be issued by the Court 
to the said effect. Herein, we are reminded of the observations of this 
Court in Utkaf Contractors and Joinerv Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs. 
State of Orissa and Others.! which we find appropriate to quote 
C hereinbelow. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
"Just as Parliament is not expected to use unnecessary expressions, 
Parliament is also not expected to express itself unnecessarily. 
Even as Parliament does not use any word without meaning 
something, Parliament does not legislate where no legislation is 
called for. Parliament cannot be assumed to legislate for the sake 
oflegislation; nor can it be assumed to make pointless legislation. 
Parliament does not indulge in legislation merely to state what it is 
unnecessary to state or to do what is already validly done. 
Parliament may not be assumed to legislate unnecessarily. Again, 
while the words of an enactment are important,
the context is no 
less important." 
19. To answer the question posed above, the provisions of the 
Act, as it exists, may now be noted. Under Section 4 of the Act, the 
Chairperson and Members of the Lokpal are required to be appointed 
by the President on the recommendations of a Selection Committee 
consisting of-
( a) the Prime Minister - Chairperson; 
(b) the Speaker of the House of the People - Member; 
( c) the Leader of Opposition in the House of the People - Member; 
(d) the Chief Justice of India or a Judge of the Supreme Court 
nominated by him - Member; 
( e) one eminent jurist, as recommended by the Chairperson and 
members referred to in clauses (a) to (d) above, to be nominated 
] AIR 1987 SC 1454 : (1987) 3 sec 279
COMMON CAUSE : A REGISTERED SOCIETY v. UNION OF 
309 
lNDlA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
by the President - Member. 
A 
Sub-section (2) of Section 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. lf, at 
present, the LOP is not available, surely, the Chairperson and the other 
two Members of the Selection Committee, namely, the Speaker of the 
B 
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 
C 
Selection Committee to make recommendations to the President of India 
for appointment of the Chairperson and Members of the Lokpal. Trne, 
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, 
D 
by itself, will not invalidate the constitution of the Search Committee by 
the tnmcated 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 
E 
F 
G 
H
310 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 
A 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 
B 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. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
H 
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. ln its interim report on the 'Problems of Redressal 
of Citizen's 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 91h 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 8
1hof June, 2011. As a policy of Zero tolerance agairist 
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
COMMON CAUSE : A REGISTERED SOCIETY v. UNION OF 
311 
INDIA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
which are being set up for the purpose will be constitutional bodies. 
A 
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 
B 
Reference. the Special Courts Bill, 19784 and holding that the Act as 
it stands today is an eminently workable piece oflegislation 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 c 
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 inf01med citizen to complain with immunity does not exist; 
despite all the brnited 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 
D 
deed menaces people's faith in life and law. The tragedy, then, is 
that democracy becomes a casualty." 
23. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions and the transferred 
cases shall stand allowed as indicated above. 
Nidhi Jain 
Matters disposed of. 
4 AIR 1979 SC 478: (1979) I sec 380 
E