JUST SOCIETY versus UNION OF INDIA

JUST SOCIETY versus UNION OF INDIA

The impugned provisions are constitutionally valid. Legislative wisdom in granting equal status to opinions within the Selection Committee, and entrusting appointment of eminent jurist to high constitutional functionaries, cannot be questioned as being constitutionally infirm under Articles 14 and 50, absent a constitutional mandate for primacy or explicit norms.

Parties
Petitioner: Just Society; Respondent: Union of India
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Transferred Case (civil) No. 25 of 2015 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Writ petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Constitutional Validity of Statutory Provisions, Primacy in Appointment Process, Norms for Appointment of Eminent Jurist
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Constitutional Validity of Statutory Provisions Primacy in Appointment Process Norms for Appointment of Eminent Jurist

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Just Society

Petitioner

Union of India

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Transferred Case (civil) No. 25 of 2015 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Sections 3(2)(a), 4(1)(d), 4(1)(e), 4(2), second proviso to Section 4(3), Section 10, proviso to Section 14(3), Section 16, Section 37(2), and Section 63 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 are ultra vires Articles 14 and 50 of the Constitution of India
  2. 2 Whether absence of primacy to the Chief Justice of India's opinion in the Selection Committee violates the Constitution
  3. 3 Whether lack of norms for appointment of ‘eminent jurist’ renders the Act constitutionally fragile

Ratio Decidendi

The impugned provisions are constitutionally valid. Legislative wisdom in granting equal status to opinions within the Selection Committee, and entrusting appointment of eminent jurist to high constitutional functionaries, cannot be questioned as being constitutionally infirm under Articles 14 and 50, absent a constitutional mandate for primacy or explicit norms.

Court Disposition

Writ petition dismissed

Orders

  • No declaration of constitutional infirmity; case dismissed