Meaning of Leader of Opposition (for appointments), 17A PC Act questioned in SC

A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court contending that wherever the appointing committee of statutory bodies includes the Leader of Opposition, the same may be read to mean the leader of the single largest opposition party..The petition filed by NGO Youth for Equality was heard by a Bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, which issued notice to the Central government. Advocate Gopal Sankaranayanan appeared for the petitioner..The petitioner has submitted that where the Leader of the Opposition is a member of the appointing committee, the government takes cover under the fact that where such individual is not explicitly recognized, he or she would merely be called upon as an “invitee”, thereby subverting the statutory intent..The petition cites the examples of four statutory bodies – the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), the Central Information Commission (CIC) and Lokpal in his petition..The government must not be allowed to frustrate the selection process for lack of notification of a substitute for the Leader of Opposition if none is automatically forthcoming from election results, the petition states. Such grounds have been used to delay the appointment of India’s first Lokpal for nearly 5 years, it is contended..Thus, the petitioner has prayed that in all cases where no Leader of the Opposition has been recognised, “the Leader of the Opposition in the House of the People” must be deemed to be the Leader of the single largest group in opposition of the government in the House of the People. Lack of notification or invitation to such a person must not be allowed to delay key institutional appointments, the petitioner submits..The petitioner has also challenged Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which provides for a second threshold for investigating public servants. This is in addition to the prior sanction already provided under Section 19, the petition argues. Thus, the petitioner has submitted that this provision is wholly illegal..“Once public servants are afforded the protection of the previous sanction at the stage of cognizance under Section 19 of the Act, there appears to be no justification to add yet another layer of protection right at the very threshold when it comes to even embarking on an enquiry or investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.”.The Court issued notice with respect to the above prayers..The petitioner had also made another prayer – that decisions on the appointment of the Director CBI, the Central Vigilance Commissioner, the Chief Information Commissioner, and the Lokpal, be taken by unanimous vote of the appointing committee..The Bench, however, did not issue notice with respect to the above prayer..Read the order below.