The Supreme Court today reserved its verdict in a PIL filed by NGO Common Cause with regard to the appointment of the chairperson and members of the Lokpal, as per the amended rules framed under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013..A Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha heard both sides of the story amidst allegations that the Centre was dragging its feet in the matter..The primary bone of contention in the case has been interpreting who the ‘Leader of Opposition’ in the Lok Sabha would be. Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi submitted that in the current scenario, there was no Leader of Opposition. He went on to state,.“The Lok Sabha has declined to accept Mr. Kharge as the Leader of the Opposition.”.He also maintained that in the current session, the budget was a priority and the Lokpal issue might possibly be taken up in the monsoon session..Senior Advocate Shanti Bhushan, who appeared for the petitioner, disagreed. He noted in his opening address,.“There is no intention to have an independent body like the Lokpal, which can investigate ministers.”.He also mentioned that in a case where a law, despite being passed, was not remotely operative, it was the constitutional duty of the courts to intervene..Then Bench, after giving the parties a patient hearing, proceeded to reserve its order.
The Supreme Court today reserved its verdict in a PIL filed by NGO Common Cause with regard to the appointment of the chairperson and members of the Lokpal, as per the amended rules framed under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013..A Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha heard both sides of the story amidst allegations that the Centre was dragging its feet in the matter..The primary bone of contention in the case has been interpreting who the ‘Leader of Opposition’ in the Lok Sabha would be. Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi submitted that in the current scenario, there was no Leader of Opposition. He went on to state,.“The Lok Sabha has declined to accept Mr. Kharge as the Leader of the Opposition.”.He also maintained that in the current session, the budget was a priority and the Lokpal issue might possibly be taken up in the monsoon session..Senior Advocate Shanti Bhushan, who appeared for the petitioner, disagreed. He noted in his opening address,.“There is no intention to have an independent body like the Lokpal, which can investigate ministers.”.He also mentioned that in a case where a law, despite being passed, was not remotely operative, it was the constitutional duty of the courts to intervene..Then Bench, after giving the parties a patient hearing, proceeded to reserve its order.