Supreme Court To Hear Suo Motu Plea On Lokpal's Jurisdiction Over High Court Judges On April 15; To Keep Complainant's Name Masked
The case before the Lokpal (Justice AM Khanwilkar) involved allegations against a sitting High Court judge, who was accused of influencing an Additional District Judge and another High Court judge to favor a private company in a suit.
The Supreme Court today began hearing a suo motu petition challenging a recent Lokpal decision that asserted its jurisdiction over High Court Judges.
The matter was addressed by a Bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, and Justice Abhay S Oka focused on whether complaints against judicial officers fall within the ambit of the Lokpal Act.
During the hearing today, Justice Gavai inquired about the complainant’s presence, to which Justice Kant confirmed that the complainant had submitted written communication.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, assisting the Court, and Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing the Union, debated the question of jurisdiction.
Mehta contended that the matter was essentially a question of law, specifically, whether the Lokpal has the authority to adjudicate complaints against High Court Judges and what the appropriate mechanism should be. The SG emphasized that only one section of the Lokpal Act needed examination regarding this issue.
SG Mehta highlighted that this case raises a fundamental question: "Should complaints against constitutional officeholders be filed within the ambit of the Lokpal Act, or do they fall exclusively under judicial review?" He referenced precedents involving the appointment of the CBI and other sensitive institutions to underline the importance of safeguarding constitutional authority.
Sibal argued that the complainant’s call for the removal of the Lokpal’s jurisdiction in cases against High Court Judges reflects a broader concern about institutional independence.
However, the Bench remained focused on the narrow question of jurisdiction. The Court requested Senior Advocate Ranjith Kumar to assist the Bench as an Amicus Curiae.
"The complainant has some other viewpoints (than Mr Sibal and SG Mehta)... Can you (Ranjith Kumar) assist us? So that every viewpoint is considered..." the Bench said.
After an extensive discussion, the Bench directed that the matter be listed for further hearing on April 15, 2025, at 2:00 p.m., and assured that the identity of the complainant would remain confidential.
"We have masked your name...we will protect your identity and keep your name masked. We will consider the cause you are trying to espouse," the Bench said.
The Supreme Court, on February 18, had stayed a recent Lokpal of India's decision asserting jurisdiction over High Court judges. The Court had taken suo motu cognizance of the matter and issued notice, expressing grave concern over the implications of the Lokpal’s ruling.
Lokpal of India's Order
Pertinently, on January 27, the order was delivered by Lokpal, former Supreme Court Judge Justice AM Khanwilkar. The ruling interpreted Section 14(1)(f) to include High Court judges as “persons in a body established by an Act of Parliament.” The reasoning was that since the concerned High Court was created for a newly formed State by a Parliamentary Act, its judges fall under the Lokpal’s ambit.
"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 stated in its order.
The ruling arose from a complaint accusing a sitting High Court judge of improperly influencing an Additional District Judge and another High Court judge to favor a private company in a lawsuit. However, the Lokpal did not examine the merits of the complaint, instead forwarding it to the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court for further action.
Cause Title: In Re: Order dated 27/01/2025 passed by Lokpal of India and Ancillary Issues [SMW(C) No. 2/2025; Diary No. 9527/2025]