Just Society v. Union of India & Ors.
Background
The petitioner, an organisation called "Just Society," challenged several provisions of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, including Sections 3(2)(a), 4(1)(d), 4(1)(e), 4(2), the second proviso to Section 4(3), Section 10, the proviso to Section 14(3), Section 16, Section 37(2) and Section 63, as unconstitutional. The core argument was that under Section 4(1)(d), the Chief Justice of India or his nominee Judge sits merely as one member of the Selection Committee that picks the Lokpal Chairperson and Members, without any special primacy over the other members' opinions. The petitioner also argued that Section 4(1)(e), which allows appointment of an "eminent jurist" to the Selection Committee, lacked defined norms or criteria for who qualifies.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court rejected both challenges and dismissed the writ petition. On the first point, the Court held that while some other statutes use the phrase "in consultation with the Chief Justice" (which courts have read as giving his opinion primacy), the absence of such language in the Lokpal Act does not by itself make Section 4(1)(d) unconstitutional: it is for the legislature to decide whether to give the Chief Justice's opinion primacy or treat it as equal to other Selection Committee members' views, and that policy choice is not open to challenge merely because it differs from other laws. On the second point, the Court held that leaving the choice of "eminent jurist" to a high-powered body of constitutional functionaries, without an exhaustive list of criteria, did not amount to an ex-facie illegality, since no set of norms could realistically satisfy everyone. Finding no constitutional infirmity in either provision, the Court dismissed the petition.
Lesson Learnt
Courts give Parliament significant latitude in designing the composition and procedure of statutory selection bodies; a law is not unconstitutional merely because it departs from the pattern used in other statutes or because it leaves some appointment criteria open-ended, as long as there is no actual violation of a constitutional provision.