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