THE LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTAS ACT, 2013
Appointment of Chairperson and Members of LOKPAL on recommendations of Selection Committee.
Section 4. (1) The Chairperson and Members shall be appointed by the President after obtaining 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 by the President—Member.
(2) NO APPOINTMENT OF A CHAIRPERSON OR A MEMBER SHALL BE INVALID MERELY BY REASON OF ANY VACANCY IN THE SELECTION COMMITTEE.
(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 by the President—Member.
(2) NO APPOINTMENT OF A CHAIRPERSON OR A MEMBER SHALL BE INVALID MERELY BY REASON OF ANY VACANCY IN THE SELECTION COMMITTEE.
Learned AG’s STAND in 2014 and 2017:-
THEN in November 2014 in an advisory opinion to Lok Sabha secretariat after UPA chairperson Smt. Sonia Gandhi wrote to Lok Sabha Speaker Sumitra Mahajan seeking LoP post for Congress nominee the ATTORNEY GENERAL said:
“The LoP is a member of selection committees to choose the chief and members of Lokpal, Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Central Information Commission (CIC) and National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).The absence of recognised Leader of Opposition (LoP) in Lok Sabha will not invalidate appointments in various statutory bodies including Lokpal and CVC among others. All the four Acts - the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the CVC Act, 2003, RTI Act, 2005 and the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 -- provide that the selection "shall not be rendered invalid under any of the Acts merely on account of a vacancy of any member in the committees. It is clear that in at least two of the four Acts (CVC and RTI), Parliament has clearly stated its intention i.e. that there may be a situation where no LoP is recognised in Lok Sabha by the Speaker. As far as the other two Acts are concerned, it is obvious that the vacancy in the selection committee regarding Leader of Opposition, who will not be present in the committee because of lack of appointment as such, will be treated as a casual vacancy i.e. akin to a member of the selection committee not being able to attend the meeting.”
NOW in March 2017 in Supreme Court the ATTORNEY GENERAL says:
“Under the Lokpal Act, the selection panel must include the Leader of the Opposition (LoP) in the Lok Sabha. But the largest opposition party - the Congress - has only 45 members and lacks the requisite 10 per cent of the total 545 seats, giving rise to the requirement to amend the present Lokpal Act. The amendments pertaining to the definition of the Leader of Opposition in the Lokpal Act are pending in Parliament. The government is considering 20 changes in the Lokpal law and the judiciary can't pass order on how and when the amendments should be passed.”
NOTE:
1. The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions seeking the appointment of a Lokpal in the Country.
2. CVC Act and RTI Act- if the Leader of Opposition in the House of the People has not been recognised as such, the Leader of the single largest group in opposition of the Government in the House of the People shall be deemed to be the Leader of Opposition.
1. The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions seeking the appointment of a Lokpal in the Country.
2. CVC Act and RTI Act- if the Leader of Opposition in the House of the People has not been recognised as such, the Leader of the single largest group in opposition of the Government in the House of the People shall be deemed to be the Leader of Opposition.
Posts
3 comments:
16 November 2014 Leader of Opposition's absence won't invalidate Lokpal, CVC appointments, says Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi The absence of recognised Leader of Opposition (LoP) in Lok Sabha will not invalidate appointments in various statutory bodies including Lokpal and CVC among others, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi has said.
The Attorney General (AG), in his opinion to Lok Sabha on the issue of LoP, has also said that the power to recognise a Parliamentary Party or group for functioning in the House is solely that of the Speaker.
The LoP is a member of selection committees to choose the chief and members of Lokpal, Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Central Information Commission (CIC) and National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).
The AG's opinion was sought by the Lok Sabha secretariat after UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi wrote to Lok Sabha Speaker Sumitra Mahajan seeking LoP post for Congress nominee.
All the four Acts - the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the CVC Act, 2003, RTI Act, 2005 and the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 -- provide that the selection "shall not be rendered invalid under any of the Acts merely on account of a vacancy of any member in the committees," the AG said.
It is clear that in at least two of the four Acts (CVC and RTI), Parliament has clearly stated its intention i.e. that there may be a situation where no LoP is recognised in Lok Sabha by the Speaker.
"As far as the other two Acts are concerned, it is obvious that the vacancy in the selection committee regarding Leader of Opposition, who will not be present in the committee because of lack of appointment as such, will be treated as a casual vacancy i.e. akin to a member of the selection committee not being able to attend the meeting," Rohatgi has said in the letter copy of which was received in response to an RTI query filed by PTI.
The four Acts have nothing to do with the actual recognition of a member of the House as Leader of Opposition which recognition vests solely in the discretion of the Speaker, the AG has said.
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-leader-of-opposition-s-absence-won-t-invalidate-lokpal-cvc-appointments-says-attorney-general-mukul-rohatgi-2035607
28/3/2017 Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told the SC that amendments pertaining to the definition of the Leader of Opposition in the Lokpal Act are pending in Parliament. The Supreme Court reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions seeking the appointment of a Lokpal in the country.
The centre reiterated that the judiciary can't give an order on "how and when amendments should be passed." The Centre was referring to 20 changes its is considering to the Lokpal Act.
"The government is considering 20 changes in the Lokpal law and the judiciary can't pass order on how and when the amendments should be passed," Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi said.
Under the Lokpal Act, the selection panel must include the Leader of the Opposition (LoP) in the Lok Sabha. But the largest opposition party - the Congress - has only 45 members and lacks the requisite 10 per cent of the total 545 seats, giving rise to the requirement to amend the present Lokpal Act.
He further said the appointment of a Lokpal in this session of the Parliament was not possible as it is the Budget session.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/sc-cant-order-government-on-passing-amendments-centre-on-lokpal-act/articleshow/57871795.cms
Supreme Court on 27/4/2017
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.245 OF 2014
COMMON CAUSE : A REGISTERED SOCIETY VERSUS UNION OF INDIA
Para 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.
Post a Comment