Suo Motu Case Over Lokpal Jurisdiction To Decide Complaint Against HC Judge Placed Before CJI

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court today placed before CJI Sanjiv Khanna the suo motu case initiated against a Lokpal decision to entertain a complaint against a High Court Judge.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai, Surya Kant and Abhay S Oka, before which the matter was listed on last few occasions, noted that in the subject order, the Lokpal sought guidance from the Chief Justice of India.

Underlining the principle of judicial propriety and pointing to the operative part of the Lokpal order, Justice Oka said that the issue is something for a CJI-led bench to decide. For context, the judge was referring to the following excerpt from the Lokpal order,

"Awaiting the guidance of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, consideration of these complaints, for the time being, is deferred until four weeks from today, keeping in mind the statutory time frame to dispose of the complaint in terms of Section 20(4) of the Act of 2013."

To recap, on February 20, while issuing notice to the Union government, the Registrar General of the Lokpal and the complainant, the Supreme Court had stayed the Lokpal order. "Something very disturbing," Justice Gavai had commented on the Lokpal's reasoning. In addition, Justices Gavai and Oka had observed that since the commencement of the Constitution, all High Court judges are Constitutional authorities and cannot be regarded as mere statutory functionaries (as held by the Lokpal).

On March 18, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, BH Marlapalle appeared to present arguments against the Lokpal's decision. Deeming it necessary to hear an alternative viewpoint for fair adjudication, the Court appointed Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar as Amicus Curiae. Justice Gavai also clarified that the bench would go only into the question of Lokpal's jurisdiction and not the merits of the allegations against the Judge.

Background

In the underlying order dated January 27, the Lokpal was deciding a complaint accusing a sitting High Court judge of influencing an Additional District Judge and another High Court judge to favor a private company in a suit.

The Lok Pal (headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice AM Khanwilkar) ruled that the Judge of the High Court would qualify as a person in a body established by an Act of Parliament within the sweep of Section 14(1)(f) of the Lokpal Act. It was reasoned that since the High Court in question was created for a newly formed State by an Act of the Parliament, it would come within Section 14(1)(4).

"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.

Previously, the Lokpal had ruled that it cannot exercise jurisdiction over the Chief Justice of India or a Judge of the Supreme Court as the Supreme Court was not a body established by an Act of the Parliament.

Case Title: IN RE : ORDER DATED 27/01/2025 PASSED BY LOKPAL OF INDIA AND ANCILLIARY ISSUES, SMW(C) No. 2/2025