The Supreme Court, in a suo motu case, issued a notice to the Centre on Thursday while staying an order of the Lokpal that asserted its jurisdiction to probe High Court judges under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Surya Kant, and Abhay S Oka sought responses from the Centre and the Registrar of Lokpal, expressing serious concerns over the matter.
The order by the Lokpal, passed on January 27, stated that it could exercise jurisdiction over High Court judges, a ruling that drew sharp criticism from the Supreme Court. “Something very, very disturbing,” remarked Justice Gavai as the court took up the case, according to a report by Bar and Bench.
The apex court emphasized that the issue was of “great importance” as it pertained to judicial independence.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, categorically stated that High Court judges do not fall under the ambit of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act. “Each judge is the High Court,” he asserted.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal also termed the Lokpal’s order as “exceptionally disturbing” and “fraught with danger,” urging the court to stay its operation.
The Lokpal’s ruling stemmed from two complaints against a High Court judge accused of influencing an Additional District Judge and another High Court judge in a case. The Lokpal clarified in its order that it had not examined the allegations but had merely determined the applicability of Section 14 of the 2013 Act to High Court judges.
The Lokpal had also forwarded the complaints to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for guidance, deferring any further action. The Full Bench of Lokpal, led by Justice AM Khanwilkar, maintained that High Court judges fall within the definition of ‘public servant’ under the Act and are not explicitly excluded from its jurisdiction. However, it decided to consult the CJI before proceeding.
In a protective move, the Supreme Court barred the complainant from disclosing the name of the judge or the details of the complaints. The Lokpal had also redacted the judge’s name and the High Court’s identity before making its decision public.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the matter next on March 21.
