The Supreme Court has scheduled a suo motu case for hearing after April 15, challenging the Lokpal’s January 27 order that permitted complaints against High Court judges under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
A Special Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, and Justice Abhay S. Oka is reviewing the matter. To ensure a balanced perspective, the Bench appointed Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar as Amicus Curiae to represent the complainant’s viewpoint. The complainant, who personally appeared before the court, confirmed that he had submitted his written arguments and requested that they be considered without legal representation. However, the Bench deemed it necessary to appoint an amicus to provide an alternative legal perspective for fair adjudication.
Questioning Lokpal’s Jurisdiction
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, along with Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and B.H. Marlapalle, is arguing against the Lokpal’s ruling. Mehta contended that the issue is strictly legal, emphasizing that the Lokpal Act does not grant jurisdiction over High Court judges. He pointed out that only a single provision in the Act needed to be examined to determine the scope of Lokpal’s authority.
The Supreme Court clarified that its review will be limited to the question of jurisdiction and will not extend to the merits of the allegations made against the judge in question. Meanwhile, the Lokpal has submitted an affidavit reiterating its stance, which was also challenged by the Solicitor General.
Supreme Court’s Earlier Stay on Lokpal’s Order
Previously, on February 20, the same Bench had stayed the Lokpal’s decision, expressing serious concern over its implications. The Apex Court called the ruling “very, very disturbing” and issued notices to the Central government and the Registrar of Lokpal.
Solicitor General Mehta argued that High Court judges do not fall within the scope of the 2013 Act, asserting that each judge is equivalent to a High Court in itself. Kapil Sibal also weighed in, calling the Lokpal’s ruling exceptionally troubling and dangerous. He further urged the court to stay its implementation.
Lokpal’s Interpretation of the Law
The Lokpal’s Full Bench, led by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, had ruled that High Court judges qualify as ‘public servants’ under Section 14 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act. The Lokpal noted that the Act does not explicitly exclude judges from its purview. This ruling was issued while addressing complaints alleging that a High Court judge had influenced an Additional District Judge and another High Court judge in a suit.
However, without taking immediate action, the Lokpal decided to consult the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for guidance on the matter. The complaints were forwarded to the CJI, and further proceedings were deferred for four weeks, considering the statutory time limit under Section 20(4) of the Act.
Before making its decision public, the Lokpal redacted the name of the judge and the High Court involved.
In a prior directive on February 20, the Supreme Court had prohibited the complainant from revealing the judge’s identity or disclosing details of the complaint.
The matter is now scheduled for its next hearing after April 15, where the Supreme Court will determine whether the Lokpal has the jurisdiction to entertain complaints against High Court judges.
