Role of LoP in appointment process cannot be rendered meaningless: SC

New Delhi A leader of Opposition’s participation in a consultative process for appointing different authorities cannot be rendered meaningless by not allowing them enough time to review the names on the shortlist, the Supreme Court said on Friday, adding it will lay down guidelines for the entire country regarding how this procedural formality should be made effective.

A bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, was hearing a petition moved by Madhya Pradesh’s LoP Umang Singhar, who has objected to the appointment of new Lokayukta in the state, claiming it violates appointment norms.

“The LoP’s presence in the committee becomes meaningless if he is not given adequate time... It may have a pan-India impact. The LoP must be given sufficient time to consider a set of names,” observed the bench, also comprising justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.

The court order stated that it would adjudicate the petition “bearing in mind the countrywide ramification, it will be appropriate for this court to lay down parameters for holding effective consultation”.

Notably, the development in the top court closely follows a similar controversy that erupted when two new election commissioners were appointed on March 14 by a selection panel, comprising Prime Minister Narendra Modi, home minister Amit Shah and Lok Sabha opposition leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury. Chowdhury gave a dissent note raising questions over the “procedural lapses” and claimed that he was given the shortlisted names at the last moment.

A different Supreme Court bench, while hearing a bunch of petitions challenging the new law on the appointment of election commissioners, had on Thursday questioned the delay in sending the shortlisted names to the selection panel that it said considered more than 200 names in just two hours.

On March 16, the Madhya Pradesh government issued notification appointing justice Satyendra Kumar Singh (retired) as the new Lokayukta of the state.

Singhar, in his petition before the Supreme Court, has contended that the state government took a unilateral decision and that his advice was not taken. Senior counsel Kapil Sibal, representing Singhar, argued that he received a communication a day before asking him to simply grant his consent. Senior counsel Vivek Tankha and advocate Sumeer Sodhi also appeared for the petitioner.

“This is utter mockery of the consultation process. A new Lokayukta has been appointed without any role for me in the process...there has to be meaningful consultation. They sent only one name,” Sibal said.

Appearing for the state government, solicitor general Tushar Mehta claimed that a complete file was sent to the Congress leader and that he was also consulted over the phone.

Mehta pointed out that the selection panel for Lokayukta comprise the chief minister, chief justice of the high court and LoP, and that the government had sent three names to the chief justice. The appointment of the new Lokayukta was in concurrence of the chief justice’s opinion, he said.

The SG added that Singhar’s petition should be heard first by the Madhya Pradesh high court, but the bench was indisposed. “This is going to have a pan-India impact. We will have to lay down certain guidelines. This is an important issue,” said the court. It also said that there must be some mechanism for the three members of the selection panel to meet before a name was cleared. The court then issued notice on Singhar’s petition and fixed the next hearing after three weeks.