New Delhi, March 7
The Supreme Court on Thursday sought to know, within 10 days, the possible date for the Selection Committee's meeting to finalise names for the Lokpal - a three-member, anti-corruption watchdog comprising a chairman, a judicial and non-judicial member would take place.
The bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice Sanjiv Khanna told Attorney General K.K. Venugopal to inform them of the date after he said that the Search Committee, headed by former apex court judge Ranjana Prakash Desai, had, on February 28, recommended three names each for the three posts.
The court had on January 17 asked the Search Committee to complete its deliberations for short-listing the candidates by February-end.
The bench, however, declined the plea by lawyer-activist Prashant Bhushan to make public the panel of names shortlisted by the Search Committee.
"We have considered the matter. At this stage, the order which we consider appropriate to pass is to request the learned Attorney General to inform the Court within ten days from today about the possible date of convening a meeting of the Selection Committee for finalization of the names for the constitution of the Lokpal," said the order passed by the court.
The Selection Committee comprises Prime Minister, the Lok Sabha Speaker, the Chief Justice of India, the Leader of Opposition (which in the present instance, is the leader of the largest opposition party in Lok Sabha - the Congress) and an eminent jurist.
Former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi is the eminent jurist on the selection panel.
Venugopal had told the court that Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, has to seek the availability of all members of the selection panel for convening the meeting.
On Bhushan's plea for putting the names recommended by the Search Committee in the public domain, the court said, "It is our considered view that no direction from the Court should be issued in this regard. Rather the matter should be left for a just determination by the Selection Committee as and when the meeting of the Committee is convened."
As Bhushan recalled that in the last hearing of the matter on January 17, the CJI had said that the names would be shared with the petitioner, NGO Common Cause, the moment they get it, CJI Gogoi said, "We don't have the names."
Referring to the judgments from the early 1970s, Bhushan said, "Transparency is essential in the appointments of such nature."
However, the CJI said, "Selection Committee will have reasons for selecting one or the other. There will be no rule of thumb."
Striking a note of caution, the Attorney General said, "Transparency would be opening a Pandora's box."
Bhushan, appeared for NGO Common Cause which had moved a contempt plea over failure of the government to act on the April 27, 2017 judgement 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 Attorney General urged the court that since the "Selection Committee would be in seized of the matter, this contempt petition may appropriately be closed".
The court directed the listing of the matter for further hearing after 10 days.
