Summary
The Lokpal Act as it stood in 2017 was workable despite the absence of a recognised Leader of Opposition. The remaining Selection Committee could nominate the eminent jurist, constitute the Search Committee and recommend appointments. Pending amendments intended to improve operation did not justify suspending enforcement of the enacted law.
Issues
- Whether absence of a Leader of Opposition made the Act unworkable pending amendment.
Provisions considered
- Section 4(1)–(3), Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013The vacancy-saving provision enabled the truncated Selection Committee to act and constitute the Search Committee. (¶ 18–20)
Held
- The Court would not dictate the legislative amendment process or rewrite the provision while amendment was pending. That restraint did not preclude enforcement of existing workable legislation. (¶ 16–18)
- Section 4(2) saved appointments despite a vacancy. Allowing the truncated Committee to recommend appointments while denying its ability to constitute a Search Committee would be contradictory. The proposed clarification did not establish an existing legal disability. (¶ 19)
- Other proposed improvements did not legally bar operation. Enforcement could not remain suspended until amendments were enacted. (¶ 20–23)
Result
Writ petitions and transferred cases allowed to the extent indicated; existing Act held enforceable without awaiting proposed amendments.