Summary
The Lokpal selection provisions were not unconstitutional merely because the Chief Justice or nominee had an equal vote rather than primacy. The Constitution does not require judicial primacy for appointments to every statutory body. Entrusting nomination of an eminent jurist to the high constitutional functionaries also disclosed no facial infirmity on the grounds urged.
Issues
- Whether lack of judicial primacy and detailed jurist-selection criteria invalidated the provisions.
Provisions considered
- Section 4(1)(d) and (e), Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013Equal status for the judicial member and selection of an eminent jurist by the specified high-level body survived this challenge. (¶ 3–4)
Held
- Different statutory choices about primacy do not themselves establish constitutional invalidity. The legislature could accord equal status to the Selection Committee members. (¶ 3)
- Leaving eminent-jurist selection to the high-powered constitutional body was not facially illegal; comprehensive criteria could not necessarily satisfy every concern. (¶ 4)
Result
Transferred case found without merit; writ petition dismissed.