Pushing for the immediacy of a Lokpal for transparency in government and public life, the Supreme Court on Thursday said the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act of 2013, in its original form, is an "eminently workable piece of legislation". There is no need to keep its implementation in abeyance till the parliamentary standing committee's proposed amendments are incorporated, the court observed.

In a judgment, a Bench led by Justice Ranjan Gogoi disagreed with the government's stand that appointment of Lokpal is not currently possible as there is no Leader of Opposition in the 16th Lok Sabha.

As per the 2013 law, which was put into force from January 2014, the LoP is part of the high-level selection committee for Lokpal. The other members of the selection panel are the Prime Minister, Lok Sabha Speaker and the Chief Justice of India. The law has been hanging in limbo since 2014 awaiting an amendment to switch the LoP for the leader of the single largest party in the opposition in the Lok Sabha. If the amendment is made, the single largest opposition party leader can take the place of the LoP at the Lokpal selection panel.

However, Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi has been consistently telling the Supreme Court that the amendments to the Lokpal law concerning the substitution of the Leader of Opposition (LoP) with the leader of the single largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha on the high-powered Lokpal selection committee was still pending with Parliament.

Rohatgi had explained to the court that, as of now, the implementation of the Lokpal law would remain hanging till Parliament allows the single largest opposition party leader to take the place of the LoP in the latter's absence.

"Unless the proposed amendment making leader of the largest opposition party as LoP is passed by Parliament, the Lokpal cannot be appointed," Rohatgi had submitted.

Reading out the last paragraph of what seems to be a short judgment, Justice Gogoi quoted former Supreme Court judge Justice Krishna Iyer when he termed the Lokpal Act of 2013 as an "eminently workable" law. Justice Gogoi succinctly added that there would be no justification to bear for the proposed amendment to bear fruit for appointment of the anti-graft ombudsman — a post which Parliament found to be necessary to have to get rid of corruption in a democratic republic.

Senior advocate Shanti Bhushan, for petitioner NGO Common Cause, alleged that the Lokpal Act was deliberately not implemented for ulterior motives.

Bhushan had submitted that the court should not leave it to the political parties to pass the Lokpal, and give directions to Parliament to amend the law.

He had pointed out how the LoP has been substituted with the single largest opposition party leader in other laws concerned with the appointments of the Chief Vigilance Commissioner, CBI chief and Chief Information Commissioner.

The court had earlier criticised the government for “dragging its feet” on the appointment Lokpal to usher in probity in public life.

Questioning the political will of the government to appoint the Lokpal, the court had even previously asked whether the Lokpal amendment could be implemented by way of an ordinance.

Related Topics