Meaningful consultation and primacy of the Chief Justice govern Lokpal appointment; Opposition views are non-binding.

Section 3(1) of the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 1995 requires meaningful consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court for appointment of the Lokpal, because the office is quasi-judicial and the Chief Justice's opinion carries primacy in securing a suitable appointment. The Leader of the Opposition has only a consultative, non-binding role: the Government must consider his views or objections, but he has no right to insist on a particular nominee or veto the appointment. The appointment process is valid where the Chief Justice is effectively consulted and the Opposition's views are considered, even though they do not control the final decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the consultation contemplated by Section 3(1) of the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 1995 requires meaningful consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court and only a consultative, non-binding role for the Leader of the Opposition in the appointment of Lokpal.

Analysis: The statutory scheme requires the Lokpal to be a sitting or retired Judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court and to perform functions of a quasi-judicial character aimed at curbing maladministration. In that setting, consultation with the Chief Justice is an essential safeguard and is meant to secure the most suitable appointment, so the Chief Justice's opinion carries primacy. The consultation with the Leader of the Opposition is intended to inform the Government and obtain views or objections, but it does not confer a right to insist on a particular nominee or to veto the appointment. On that construction, the appointment process is valid if the Chief Justice is effectively consulted and the Opposition's views are considered, even though they are not binding.

Conclusion: The consultation with the Chief Justice is mandatory and paramount, while the Leader of the Opposition has only a consultative role; his suggestion of another name is not binding on the Government.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute requires appointment after consultation with a constitutional functionary, the nature of consultation is determined by the statutory purpose and the office involved, and a non-binding consultation is satisfied when the consultee's views are considered even though they do not control the final decision.

---