Holding

The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 is enforceable as it stands; the Search Committee Rules are not ultra vires, and a truncated Selection Committee may validly appoint members and constitute a Search Committee despite vacancies.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined writ petitions filed by Common Cause and other NGOs seeking a declaration that Rule 10(1) and Rule 10(4)(i) of the Search Committee Rules, 2014 were ultra vires the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 and that the appointment process for the Lokpal should be stayed until the pending Amendment Bill was enacted. The Court held that the Act, as it stands, is a workable piece of legislation and that the absence of a recognised Leader of Opposition does not invalidate the functioning of a truncated Selection Committee or its power to constitute a Search Committee. It further ruled that Section 4(2) expressly prevents any vacancy in the Selection Committee from rendering appointments invalid, allowing the process to continue. The Court emphasized the doctrine of separation of powers, stating that the legislature alone may amend the Act and the judiciary should not interfere with that legislative exercise. Consequently, the petitions were allowed and the Court directed that the selection process for the Lokpal proceed without waiting for the amendment.

Issues considered

The validity of Rule 10(1) and Rule 10(4)(i) of the Search Committee Rules, 2014 under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
Whether the absence of a recognised Leader of Opposition renders the Selection Committee’s actions ultra vires.
Whether the Court can stay or read down the Act pending the passage of the Amendment Bill.
The scope of judicial intervention in a pending legislative amendment (separation of powers).
Whether Section 4(2) of the Act bars appointments from being invalidated due to vacancies in the Selection Committee.

Legislation cited

Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003
Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013s. 1(4), s. 4(1), s. 4(2), s. 4(3)
Right to Information Act, 2005
Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977s. 2

Subjects

LokpalLokayuktas ActSelection CommitteeSearch CommitteeUltra viresSeparation of powersLegislative amendmentAppointment processLeader of OppositionConstitutional law

Judgment

[2017] 3 S.C.R. 291

COMMON CAUSE : A REGISTERED SOCIETY A
v.
UNION OF INDIA
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 245of2014)
APRIL 27, 2017 B

[RANJAN GOGOi AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
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. c
Federation Ltd. (2015] 3 SCR 997 : 2015 (8) SCC 1 -
referred to·
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]
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
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
B
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 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 E
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 F
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
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
WITH
T. C. (C) No. 10 of2017 @T. P. (C) No. 1264 of2014
W. P. (C) No. 673 of2015
E 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
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
c 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
absence of a Leader of Opposition in the present House of People/Lok
F 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:
"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
H 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.
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
B 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.
c 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
D 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,
E '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.
F
" .. .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.)
G 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
H
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 c
Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571, p.591, para 45: (2010) 2 SCC (Cri)
401]
***
46. ln the background of the constitutional mandate, the question
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 E
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 F
legal policy) and the purpose of the legislation"[Bennion on
Statutory Interpretation by Francis Bennion, (61h Edn.)136]."
I0. 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 I0% 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
"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:-
F
'(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:-
G
' 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:-
H
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 G
largest Comminee.
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
B Search and to be innlidated Lok-pal and ofproceedings & promdingsofSearch
Selection due to vacancy in Lokayul.-w of Search and c(c) and Selection
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
D Director of Secretary to Lokpaland to Go,·emment level
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
E assets and mvantsto 44(2)of to dedarethe (U acquired by the public
liabi!itie; by dedareamts Lokpaland innnovable mvant\lhetherin
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
F tllldertheAct thenamtofany public mnnt io be
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
G Return of property o"ned'
movable and acquired'
immovable assets inherited by
andliabilitie< of himher and; (rii)
>elf, spouse and Debts and other
dependent liabilities
children as on 31" incurred by
Marchby31" him her directly
H
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 ofthe Central
abienceofsuch Bumuofln,·eitigation
office~an
advocate having
atlmtl~yms
ofpractice, 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.
16. As noticed, the report of the Parliamentary Standing
Committee is dated 3rd December, 2015. In the hearing of the cases that
H
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 F
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. G
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
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
working of some of the provisions of the Act, the wholesome principle
B
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.
"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
D 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
E 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
F 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;
G
(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
H
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 E
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 F
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.
G
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
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.
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.
c
"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
D 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.
'<

E 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 91hof
May, 2011. This Convention imposes a number of obligations, some
mandatory, some recommendatory and some optional on the
F 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 81hof 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
H 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.
E
Nidhi Jain Matters disposed of.

4 AIR 1979 SC 478: (1979) I sec 380