'Matter Concerning Independence Of Judiciary' : Supreme Court Stays Lokpal's Decision To Entertain Complaint Against High Court Judge

The Supreme Court on Thursday (Febraury 20) issued notice to the Union Government in a suo motu case initiated against a Lokpal decision which held that it can exercise jurisdiction over High Court Judges.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai, Surya Kant and Abhay S Oka expressed disapproval of the Lokpal's reasoning and stayed the operation of the order. The Court also issued notice to the Registrar General of the Lokpal and the complainant. The bench injuncted the complainant from disclosing the name of the High Court judge and the contents of the complaint.

"Something very disturbing," Justice Gavai commented on the Lokpal's reasoning. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta submitted that the Lokpal's interpretation was wrong and a High Court Judge was never intended to be brought under the Lokpal.

Justice Gavai and Oka observed that after the commencement of the Constitution, all High Court judges are to Constitutional authorities and cannot be regarded as mere statutory functionaries as held by the Lokpal.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal also voiced his criticism of the Lokpal's decision and urged the bench to stay it.

In its order, the Court observed that the "matter is of a great significance concerning the independence of the judiciary." Along with Sibal, Senior Advocate B.H. Marlapalle also offered to assist the Court.

Briefly put, in the underlying order, passed on 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 a 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

Click Here To Read/Download Order