Appoint Lokpal at earliest, no need to wait for better law: SC to Modi govt

April 28, 2017

sc

New Delhi, Apr 28: There is no justification to keep the enforcement of Lokpal Act suspended till the proposed amendments, including on the issue of the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, are cleared by Parliament, the Supreme Court said today.

The apex court said the Act was an eminently workable piece of legislation and it "does not create any bar to the enforcement of the provisions".

It said the amendments proposed to the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013, and the views of the Parliamentary Standing Committee, were attempts at streamlining the working of the Act and does not constitute legal hindrances or bars its enforcement as it stands today.

A bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha allowed a batch of petitions filed by NGO Common Cause and others and said such attempts for amendment 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 the Act.

"We, therefore, conclude by quoting Justice Krishna Iyer in reference, the Special Courts Bill, 1978 and holding that the Act 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," the bench said.

The NGO had sought the immediate appointment of Lokpal in the country.

Senior advocate Shanti Bhushan, appearing for NGO Common Cause, had argued that even though the Lokpal Bill was passed by Parliament in 2013 and came into effect in 2014, the Lokpal was not being appointed by the government deliberately.

Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Centre, had said the Lokpal cannot be appointed in the current scenario, as amendments regarding the definition of the Leader of the Opposition (LOP) in the Lokpal Act was pending before the Parliament.

Rohatgi also submitted that there can be no direction to the Legislature to frame any law or amend the existing law or complete a legislative exercise within any time frame.

To this, the bench said 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.

It said that section 4(2) of the Act 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.

"If, at present, the LOP is not available, surely, the Chairperson and the other two members of the 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(1)(e) of the Act," the bench said.

The bench, which also highlighted the unique character and importance of the Act in the contemporary world, said,"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 Selection Committee to make recommendations to the President of India for appointment of the Chairperson and members of the Lokpal."

It said there is no specific provision akin to section 4 (2) 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, 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 recommendations for appointment of the Chairperson or Members of the Lokpal. To hold otherwise would be self contradictory," it added.

The bench said the proposed amendment to Section 4(3) of the Act would 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 Chairperson or 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," it said.

The bench said any interference by the court, at this juncture, would negate the basic constitutional principle that the "legislature is supreme in the sphere of law making".

"The constitutional doctrine of separation of powers and demarcation of the respective jurisdiction 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," it said.

"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 caution the court against such an approach," it said.

The bench also dismissed a petition by NGO Just Society to declare as ultra vires some of the provisions of the Lokpal Act, saying there was no merit in it.

The petition challenged the provisions on the ground that the Chief Justice of India or his nominee Judge of the Supreme Court, under Section 4(1)(d) of the Act, is a mere member of the selection committee and the opinion rendered by either of them has no primacy in the matter of selection of Chairperson and members of the Lokpal.

The bench, however, said if the legislature in its wisdom had thought it proper not to accord primacy to the opinion of the Chief Justice or his nominee and accord equal status to the opinion rendered by the Chief Justice or his nominee and treat such opinion at par with the opinion rendered by other members of the selection committee, it does not see how such legislative wisdom can be questioned on the ground of constitutional infirmity.

"It is not the mandate of the Constitution that in all matters concerning the appointment to various Offices in different bodies, primacy must be accorded to the opinion of the Chief Justice or his nominee," it said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 28,2024

New Delhi: After India summoned an American diplomat over their remarks on the arrest of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the liquor policy case, the US reiterated on Wednesday its call for "fair, transparent, timely legal processes".

We continue to follow these actions closely, including the arrest of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, said US State Department Spokesperson Matthew Miller while responding to questions on India summoning Gloria Berbena, the US Acting Deputy Chief of Mission in New Delhi.

The meeting at the foreign ministry's South Block office lasted nearly 40 minutes yesterday with India objecting strongly to the US remarks on the arrest of Mr Kejriwal.

Miller also responded to a question on the Congress party's frozen bank accounts, saying, "We are also aware of the Congress party's allegations that tax authorities have frozen some of their bank accounts in a manner that will make it challenging to effectively campaign in the upcoming elections."

He said the US encourages "fair, transparent and timely legal processes" for each of these issues.

"With respect to your first question, I'm not going to talk about any private diplomatic conversations, but of course, what we have said publicly is what I just said from here, that we encourage fair, transparent, timely legal processes. We don't think anyone should object to that," he said.

Mr Kejriwal was arrested last week by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the third Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader after Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh to be taken into custody in connection with the alleged liquor policy scam.

The US State Department on Tuesday said it is monitoring reports of Mr Kejriwal's arrest and called on New Delhi to ensure "a fair and timely legal process" for the jailed Chief Minister.

India objected to it and warned of "unhealthy precedents".

"States are expected to be respectful of the sovereignty and internal affairs of others, and this responsibility is even more so in case of fellow democracies. It could otherwise end up setting unhealthy precedents," the foreign ministry said.

"India's legal processes are based on an independent judiciary which is committed to objective and timely outcomes. Casting aspersions on that is unwarranted," the ministry stressed.

The US remarks came days after Germany's Foreign Office stressed that Mr Kejriwal is entitled to a fair and impartial trial. The Indian government had reacted strongly and summoned the German envoy, labelling their remark "blatant interference in internal matters".

The excise policy was introduced to bring an overhaul to the liquor business in Delhi, but was scrapped after Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena ordered a probe into the alleged irregularities in the policy. The ED believes the bribe money from the policy was allegedly used for funding the AAP's election campaigns. It has also called Mr Kejriwal a "conspirator" in the case.

His arrest just ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha election has also prompted furious protests from the opposition camp.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 29,2024

congIT.jpg

The Income Tax department has issued a notice of approximately Rs 1,800 crore to the Congress party, exacerbating its financial concerns ahead of the crucial 2024 Lok Sabha elections, multiple reports revealed on Friday.

The development comes after the Delhi High Court rejected the party's plea challenging reassessment proceedings for four assessment years.

The new demand pertains to assessment years 2017-18 to 2020-21 and includes penalties and interest. The Congress party now awaits reassessment for three other assessment years, expected to conclude by Sunday, the stipulated deadline, said a report.

Congress lawyer and RS MP Vivek Tankha alleged that the fresh notice of nearly Rs 1,800 crore was served on the party on Thursday without key accompanying documents.

"We received the demand notice without assessment orders. The govt appeared keener to serve us with demand rather than issue us reasons for reassessment," a news paper quoted Tankha as saying. He further added, "this is how the main opposition party is being strangled financially, and that too during the Lok Sabha elections".

Delhi HC rejects plea

The Delhi High Court, on Thursday, dismissed petitions filed by the Congress challenging the initiation of tax reassessment proceedings spanning four years by tax authorities. Justices Yashwant Varma and Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, comprising the bench, stated that the pleas were rejected in line with their earlier decision to abstain from intervening in the reopening of reassessment for an additional year.

The subject matter of the case pertained to assessment years from 2017 to 2021.

In a previous petition dismissed the week before, the Congress party had contested the initiation of reassessment proceedings concerning assessment years 2014-15 to 2016-17.

The High Court dismissed the plea, citing that the tax authority had prima facie gathered "substantial and concrete" evidence warranting further scrutiny. The tax department alleged that approximately Rs 520 crore had evaded assessment during these three years.

Additionally, the department revealed that searches conducted on entities, including some purportedly linked to Karnataka deputy chief minister D K Shivakumar and a company in Surat, had uncovered cash transactions involving Congress. These transactions were cited as violations, disqualifying the party from tax exemption available to political parties.

In the absence of exemption, parties are treated as "association of persons" and are obligated to pay taxes on their reported income. Moreover, the cash transactions are included in their total income.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 15,2024

SCSBI.jpg

New Delhi, Mar 13: The Supreme Court on Friday took exception to the State Bank of India (SBI) for not disclosing complete details of Electoral Bonds, including unique alfa numeric numbers, furnished to the Election Commission for uploading on the website.

A five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud issued notice to the SBI seeking its response on Monday after the court was informed that the issuing bank for the Electoral Bonds has not disclosed unique alfa numeric number of each bond.

"They have not disclosed the bond numbers. It has to be disclosed by the State Bank of India. All details have to be provided by the SBI," the bench, also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, noted.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal said as per the Constitution bench judgment of February 15, 2024, all details were to be disclosed.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted since the SBI was a party to the judgment, notice may be issued to it.

The court said the counsel for SBI should have been here.

"If you see the judgment, we have specified that bond numbers have to be provided," the bench said.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for the main petitioner Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR).

On an application by the EC, the bench said the details of Electoral Bonds furnished by the poll panel before the top court should be scanned and returned to it for the purpose of uploading on the website.

The Election Commission through advocate Amit Sharma filed a plea in the Supreme Court seeking a direction to release data on electoral bonds furnished to the top court in terms of previous orders of April 12, 2019 and November 2, 2023.

As per March 11, 2024 order, the Election Commission on Thursday uploaded the data on electoral bonds furnished to it by the SBI.

However, in an application, the poll panel said it had furnished to the Supreme Court a number of sealed envelopes, containing details on EBs encashed by the political parties, during the course of hearing in the matter.

It sought a direction for the return of those sealed envelopes to comply with the directions to upload it on the website as per order of March 11.

On Monday, the Supreme Court had told the SBI to furnish details of purchasers of Electoral Bonds and names of political parties redeemed those instruments by March 12 to the Election Commission, rejecting its plea for extension of time until June 30 for the purpose.

It had then directed the Election Commission to publish the information provided by the SBI on its website on March 15.

In its February 15, 2024 judgment, the SC had declared the Electoral Bonds scheme, introduced in 2018 for donation to political parties, as "unconstitutional" for being violative of the right to information.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.