Can Lokpal Entertain Complaint Against HC Judge? Supreme Court To Hear On April 15

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (March 18) adjourned till April 15 the hearing of the suo motu case initiated against a Lokpal decision to entertain a complaint against a High Court Judge.

A special bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Abhay S Oka today appointed Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar to assist the Court from the point of view of the complainant, who filed the complaint against the Judge before the Lokpal.

The complainant, who appeared in person before the bench today, submitted that he has filed his written submissions. When the bench asked the complainant if he needed the assistance of a lawyer, he said that his written arguments be considered. Nevertheless, the bench decided to appoint Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar as an amicus curiae.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and BH Marlapalle are presenting the arguments against the Lokpal's jurisdiction. The bench said that it would also need an alternative viewpoint for a fair adjudication.

SG Tushar Mehta submitted that the issue involves only a question of law and it was clear from the Lokpal Act itself that there was no jurisdiction for the body to entertain the complaint. "Only one section of the Lokpal Act need be examined," the SG said. Justice Gavai also clarified that the bench would go only into the question of jurisdiction and not the merits of the allegations against the Judge.

Lokpal has also filed its affidavit before the Supreme Court, which the SG said was a "reiteration of the order."

Earlier, while issuing notice to the Union government, the Registrar General of the Lokpal and the complainant, the 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).

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.

Notably, the Lokpal's order did not disclose the identity of the Judge or of the State/High Court.

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