BJP objection The BJP had raised objection to the “hasty” move to fill the vacancies in the Lokpal search committee in the midst of the ongoing Lok Sabha elections The party had petitioned the EC seeking to restrain the government following reports that the PM had called a meeting of the Lokpal selection committee on April 27-28 for filling up the vacancies in the search committee

New Delhi, April 26
The Centre today assured the Supreme Court that it was not taking any immediate decision to constitute the proposed anti-corruption body — Lokpal — clearly indicating that the exercise would be left to the post-poll dispensation.

“No meeting of the Lokpal selection committee is scheduled,” Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran told a Bench headed by Justice RM Lodha. The Bench is hearing a PIL by NGO Common Cause questioning the process for the selection of the chairman and other members of the ombudsman that would have the power to investigate complaints against the Prime Minister, ministers and other top brass of the government.

The Bench posted the next hearing for May 5. The government’s assurance assumes significance not only in the light of the SC case, but also in view of BJP’s objection to the “hasty” move to fill the vacancies in the Lokpal search committee in the midst of the ongoing Lok Sabha elections.

The BJP had petitioned the Election Commission seeking to restrain the government following reports that the Prime Minister had called a meeting of the Lokpal selection committee on April 27-28 for filling up the vacancies in the search committee.

The vacancies had arisen in the wake of the refusal by former Supreme Court judge KT Thomas to head it and by eminent jurist Fali S Nariman to be part of the eight-member committee.

The rules for the selection were notified on January 17, 2014 without complying with a mandatory provision (Section 61) of the Lokpal Act 2014 for placing them in Parliament 30 days in advance, the PIL petitioner had pleaded.

Further, at least four sitting judges of the SC were reported to have expressed their willingness for being considered for the post of judicial members of the Lokpal. Though keeping sitting judges in the zone of selection was permitted under the Act, it would seriously compromise judicial independence, a basic feature of the Constitution, particularly because of the fact that the government was the biggest litigant in the apex court, the PIL contended.

Justice Thomas and Nariman had refused to be part of the Lokpal Search Committee, expressing the opinion that the selection process would result in overlooking the most competent, independent and courageous persons, Bhushan pleaded.