: The Supreme Court judgment on Thursday holding that appointments to the Lokpal can be made in the absence of the Leader of Opposition (LoP) in the selection panel is a starkly contrary view to what the court had in 2014.
Hearing the case filed by Common Cause, a three-judge Bench led by then Chief Justice of India R.M. Lodha observed that the LoP held a significant position in House of People and is a “voice representing views contrary to government.”
“The very position of selection committee will create legal problems in the absence of LoP,” the Supreme Court had noted.
However, the final judgment in the case says that even a “truncated” selection committee of the Prime Minister, Lok Sabha Speaker, Chief Justice of India and an eminent jurist can make the appointments to Lokpal without the LoP.
The 16th Lok Sabha does not a have recognised LoP. “The Parliament may not have envisaged such a situation but it now needs to be interpreted so that the process is fast-tracked. The issue needs objective consideration in view of current political situation. The issue of LoP is relevant not only in Lokpal law but also in other existing legislations and it cannot be prolonged,” the Supreme Court had noted orally.
The court's final position in the judgment that the proposed amendments of Parliamentary Standing Committee to replace LoP with the single largest Opposition party leader is not “sacrosanct” contradicts the earlier observations made in the same case in 2014.
The Supreme Court had even agreed to re-interpret the term 'Leader of Opposition' and give it a broader sense to include the single largest Opposition party leader within its ambit. However, the judgment said this was not necessary.
