JUST SOCIETY versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [2017] 3 S.C.R. 335 · Decided: 27-04-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017) 3 S.C.R. 335 
JUST SOCIETY 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
(Transferred Case (C) No. 25 of2015) 
APRIL27,2017 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 - ss.3(2)(a), 4(1)(d), 4(1)(e), 
4(2), second proviso to s. 4(3), s.10, proviso to s. 14(3), s.16, s.37(2) 
ands. 63 - Constitutional validity of - Plea of the petitioner that the 
C 
said provisions ultra vires Art. 14 and 50 on the ground that the 
Chief Justice of India or his nominee Judge of the Supreme Court, 
uls. 4(1)(d) is a mere Memb~r of the Selection Committee and the 
opinion rendered by him has no primacy in the matter of selection 
of Chairperson and Members of the Lokpal; that the the Chief Justice 
of India or his nominee Judge alone who would be best situated to 
D 
decide on the suitability of any such former judge of this Court; 
and that there are no norms/criterion laid down for appointment of 
eminent jurist uls. 4(1 )(e) - Held: Impugned provisions are 
constitutionally valid - if the Legislature in its wisdom had thought 
it proper not to accord primacy to the opinion of the Chief Justice 
E 
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, 
such legislative wisdom cannot be questioned on the ground of 
constitutional infirmity - if the legislative opinion engrafted in the 
Act is in contrast to what is provided.for in other statute(s), such 
F 
legislative intention cannot be understood to be constitutionally 
impermissible - Decision regarding the appointment of eminent jurist 
is left to the body consisting of high constitutional fimctionaries 
enumerated in s. 4(J)(a) to 4(J}(d), no ex-facie illegality discerned 
in the provisions contained in s.4(1)(e) - Constitution of India -
G 
Arts. 14 and 50. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Transferred Case (Civil) 
No. 25 of2015. 
From the Order dated 03 .03.2014 by the High Court ofJudicature, 
Bombay, at Mumbai in Writ Petition No. 4374 of2014. 
H 
335 
336 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Mukul Rohatgi,AG,A. Mariarputham,AG, Sikkim, Maninder Singh, 
ASG, Nalin Kohli, D. K. Thakur, Sanchar Anand, Ms. Kiran Bala Sahay, 
AAGs, Shanti Bhushan, Vikas Singh, B. Prabakaran, Sr. Advs., Prashant 
Bhushan, Kartiketh, Rohit Kumar Singh, Ms. Sushrna Suri, Abhay Nevagi, 
Krishan Kumar, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Zeeshan Diwan, Ms. Pooja 
8 
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 Kumar, 
Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Abhinav Mukerji, Mrs. Bihu Sharma, 
Ms. Purnima Krishna, Aniruddha P. Mayee, A. Selvin Raja, Devendra 
Singh, Ankit Roy, Indrajeet Singh, Ms. VishakhaAhuja, Milind Kumar, 
C Mishra Saurabh, Naveen Sharma, M. Yogesh Kanna, Ms. Nithya, 
Mrs. Mahalakshmi, Partha Sarathy, Sunil Fernandes, V. G. Pragasam, 
S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Ms. Anma Mathur, Avneesh Arputham, 
Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Amit Arora (For Mis. Arputham Anma & 
Co.), Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Jesal Wahi, Ms. Puja Singh, Ms. Mamta 
D Singh, V. K. Sharma, Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Rachna Srivastava, Sukrit 
R. Kapoor, Nitya Madhusoodhanan, Shishir Deshpande, Ms. Ruchira 
Gupta, Salvador Santosh Rebello,Anurag Sharma, Ms. K. Enat•Jli Serna, 
Edward Belho, Amit Kumar Singh, Ranjan Mukherjee, S. Bhowmick, 
Suvendu Suvasis Das, Apoor\r Singhal, Anant K. Vataya, Narsingh N. 
Rai, Kuldip Singh, M. Shoeb Alam, Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Ujjwal Singh, 
E Mojahid Karim Khan, Tapesh Kumar Singhj, Mohd. Waquas, Aditya 
Pratap Singh, Ms. Priyanka, Ms. Priyadarshini Priya, Sarad Kumar 
Singhania, Noopur Singhal, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Rajaram Narayanan, 
P. Jeegan, Arun Singh, V. J. Usha, Ms. Divya, Ms. Sujatha, 
R. V. Kameshwaran, Advs. for the appearing parties. 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RANJAN GOGOi, J. I. The petitioner seeks a declaration to 
the effect that certain provisions of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 
2013 (hereinafter for short 'the Act') namely, Sections 3(2)(a) and 
4(1 )( d), 4(1 )( e), 4(2), the second proviso to Section 4(3), Section 10, the 
G proviso to Section 14(3), Section 16, Section 37(2) and Section 63 are 
ultra vires Articles 14 and 50 of the Constitution oflndia. The challenge 
in the aforesaid transferred case (No.25 of2015) is primarily founded 
on the ground that the Chief Justice ofl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.