SC in Mohapatra, (2002) 8 SCC 1 had accorded primacy to Hon’ble Chief Justice in consultative process for appointment of an Orissa Lokayukta. Justice Lokur in Chandrashekaraiah, (2013) 3 SCC 117 however confined law laid down in Mohapatra to the facts of that case only. It was held, views expressed by Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka have no primacy in process of appointment of Karnataka Lokayukta. Otherwise, consultation with other Constitutional Authorities would be reduced to a ‘farce’.

That interpretation has been fortified recently in Just Society v. Union of India, Transferred Case (C) No. 25 of 2015. A declaration was sought that certain provisions of The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 are ultra vires the Constitution. The challenge was primarily founded on the ground, Chief Justice of India or his Nominee Judge of Supreme Court, under Section 4(1)(d) of the Act, is a mere Member of the Selection Committee and an opinion rendered either by Chief Justice of India or his Nominee Judge has no primacy in matter of selection of Chairperson and Members of Lokpal.

SC held, “The fact that primacy of the opinion of the Chief Justice or his Nominee is accorded by certain statutes by use of the expression “in consultation”, which expression has been understood by judicial opinion to confer primacy to the opinion of the Chief Justice, the absence thereof in the Act, by itself, will not render Section 4(1)(d) thereof ultra vires the Basic Structure of the Constitution. If Legislature in its wisdom had thought it proper not to accord primacy to the opinion of the Chief Justice or his Nominee and accord equal status to the opinion rendered by the Chief Justice or his Nominee and treat such opinion at par with the opinion rendered by other Members of the Selection Committee, we do not see how such legislative wisdom can be questioned on the ground of constitutional infirmity. It is not the mandate of the Constitution that in all matters concerning the appointment to various offices in different bodies, primacy must be accorded to the opinion of the Chief Justice or his Nominee. Whether such primacy should be accorded or not is for the Legislature to decide and if the legislative opinion engrafted in the present Act is in contrast to what is provided for in other statute(s), such legislative intention, by itself, cannot be understood to be constitutionally impermissible.”