Attorney General KK Venugopal told court that names for the committee were not finalised (File)
The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected as "wholly unsatisfactory" the Centre's submission on the issue of setting up of a search committee for the Lokpal and demanded a "better affidavit" within four weeks.
The direction followed a submission by Attorney General KK Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, that the selection committee members comprising Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Lok Sabha Speaker Sumitra Mahajan and eminent jurist Mukul Rohatgi had met on July 19 to deliberate upon names for members of the search committee.
He said Mallikarjun Kharge, Congress lawmaker and leader of single largest party in opposition in Lok Sabha, was also invited for the meeting but he had declined to attend it.
Hearing the matter, a bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi, R Banumathi and Naveen Sinha termed the Centre's affidavit giving details of July 19, meeting of selection committee as "wholly unsatisfactory".
Asking the Centre to specify full particulars in the new affidavit, the bench said, "Having perused the affidavit dated July 23, 2018, all that we are inclined to record at this stage is that we find the said affidavit to be wholly unsatisfactory."
"We, therefore, do not accept the same and direct the concerned authority to file a better affidavit giving full particulars within a period of four weeks from today," it added.
The Centre had earlier told the apex court that the Lokpal selection committee, headed by the prime minister, was scheduled to meet to set up a search panel for recommending a panel of names for the appointment of the anti-graft ombudsman and its members.
The government had said the search panel would lay down its procedures, following which the selection committee would fix the time frame within which the names for selecting the chairman and members of the Lokpal would be recommended.
In his submission, Mr Venugopal said the selection committee deliberated on two point agenda for the meeting which included constitution of search committee to recommend a panel/panels of names for consideration of the selection committee for the post of chairperson and members of Lokpal.
He said that the other agenda included fixing of timeline within which the search committee will complete its task.
Reading out from the affidavit, Mr Venugopal said the selection panel also took note that the search committee is to comprise of a minimum of seven persons (including chairperson) with experience in anti-corruption policy, public administration, vigilance, policy making, finance including insurance and banking, law and management, etc.
Besides, 50 percent of the members of the search committee will be from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Minorities and Women, he said.
Mr Venugopal said after due consideration of all the issues, the selection panel has decided that the members would suggest names of suitable persons for search committee who will be considered in the next meeting to be fixed after ascertaining the convenience of the Chairperson and Members.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioner NGO Common Cause, said, the Centre has not specified the date of the next meeting in its reply and they are actually delaying the appointment of a Lokpal despite passage of a law nearly five years ago.
He said that government has no serious intention to appoint the ombudsman and it was only on the prodding of the court that a meeting of selection committee was held and appointment of senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi as eminent jurist was made.
Mr Bhushan said the apex court has two options which include initiating of contempt action against the concerned authorities for not appointing Lokpal or exercising power under Article 142 of the Constitution and appointing Lokpal.
He said the apex court should appoint a search committee itself which can suggest names for Lokpal and its members and in this way complete justice can be done looking at enormous corruption in the country.
The bench then termed Centre's reply as "wholly unsatisfactory" and refused to accept it.
Mr Venugopal urged the court to clarify the nature of the detailed particulars that is considered necessary to be incorporated in the affidavit to be filed.
The bench said, "We do not feel the necessity of recording any observations/directions to the said effect as the competent authority should not have any difficulty to appreciate and understand the nature of the particulars that are required to be laid before the Court".
The matter was listed for further hearing after four weeks.
The court was hearing a contempt petition filed by the NGO which has raised the issue of non-appointment of Lokpal despite the apex court's judgement of April 27 last year.
The apex court, in its last year's verdict, had said there was no justification to keep the enforcement of Lokpal Act suspended till the proposed amendments, including on the issue of the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, were cleared by Parliament.
It had said the Act was an eminently workable piece of legislation and "does not create any bar to the enforcement of provisions".