On Thursday, February 20, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of a case challenging a decision by the Lokpal, which asserted its authority to exercise jurisdiction over High Court judges. A bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant, and Abhay S. Oka expressed strong disapproval of the Lokpal’s reasoning and subsequently stayed the operation of its order. Additionally, the Court issued notices to the Union Government, the Registrar General of the Lokpal, and the complainant involved in the matter. In a protective measure, the bench also directed that the complainant must not disclose the identity of the High Court judge or reveal the details of the complaint, ensuring confidentiality and judicial integrity while the matter remains under scrutiny.
Justice B.R. Gavai, while reviewing the Lokpal’s reasoning, remarked that it was "something very disturbing," signalling the Court's serious concerns over the matter. During the proceedings, Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, contended that the Lokpal’s interpretation of its jurisdiction was flawed. He argued that the legal framework never intended for High Court judges to fall within the purview of the Lokpal’s authority. Mehta emphasized that such an overreach could have significant implications for judicial independence and warranted immediate judicial intervention.
Justices B.R. Gavai and Abhay S. Oka observed that, following the commencement of the Constitution, all High Court judges hold the status of Constitutional authorities and cannot be treated as mere statutory functionaries, as was concluded by the Lokpal. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal also strongly criticized the Lokpal’s reasoning and urged the bench to stay its decision, arguing that it undermined the constitutional position of High Court judges.
The controversy stems from an order passed by the Lokpal on January 27, in which it was adjudicating a complaint against a sitting High Court judge. The complaint alleged that the judge had improperly influenced an Additional District Judge and another High Court judge to rule in favor of a private company in a legal dispute.
The Lokpal, chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, held that a High Court judge could be considered a person belonging to a body established by an Act of Parliament under the ambit of Section 14(1)(f) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. The Lokpal reasoned that since the High Court in question was specifically created for a newly formed state through an Act of Parliament, it would fall within the scope of Section 14(1)(4), thereby bringing the judge under its jurisdiction.
"It will be too naive to argue that a Judge of a High Court will not come within the ambit of expression "any person" in clause (f) of Section 14(1) of the Act of 2013," the Lokpal observed. Without expressing anything on the merits of the matter, the Lokpal forwarded the complaint to the Chief Justice, awaiting his guidance. "We make it amply clear that by this order we have decided a singular issue finally - as to whether the Judges of the High Court established by an Act of Parliament come within the ambit of Section 14 of the Act of 2013, in the affirmative. No more and no less. In that, we have not looked into or examined the merits of the allegations at all," read the order.
Notably, the Lokpal's order refrained from disclosing the identity of the High Court judge or specifying the State or High Court involved in the matter.
In an earlier ruling, the Lokpal had determined that it lacked jurisdiction over the Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge, reasoning that the Supreme Court was not a body established by an Act of Parliament and, therefore, did not fall within the purview of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
info@adhwaitha.com
