Introduction:

The Supreme Court, on February 20, 2025, in the suo motu case IN RE: ORDER DATED 27/01/2025 PASSED BY LOKPAL OF INDIA AND ANCILLIARY ISSUES, SMW(C) No. 2/2025, issued notice to the Union Government challenging the decision of the Lokpal, which held that it has jurisdiction over High Court judges. A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Surya Kant, and Abhay S Oka expressed serious concerns over the Lokpal’s reasoning and immediately stayed the operation of its order. The Court also issued notices to the Registrar General of the Lokpal and the complainant, directing that the complainant refrain from disclosing the identity of the High Court judge or the details of the complaint. The case stems from 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 legal dispute. The Lokpal, chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice AM Khanwilkar, had ruled that High Court judges fall within the scope of Section 14(1)(f) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, since the concerned High Court was established through an Act of Parliament. The Supreme Court’s intervention has now put the matter on hold while awaiting further deliberation.

Arguments of Both Sides:

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta vehemently opposed the Lokpal’s decision, arguing that its interpretation was incorrect and that High Court judges were never intended to be brought under the Lokpal’s jurisdiction. He contended that after the commencement of the Constitution, all High Court judges are constitutional authorities and cannot be regarded as mere statutory functionaries, as inferred by the Lokpal. Mehta emphasized that such an interpretation undermines the independence of the judiciary and the constitutional safeguards granted to judges. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal echoed these concerns and urged the Supreme Court to stay the Lokpal’s decision, asserting that allowing such an interpretation would set a dangerous precedent affecting judicial autonomy. The Supreme Court, particularly Justices Gavai and Oka, agreed that the decision raised significant constitutional questions, finding the Lokpal’s reasoning to be “very disturbing.” On the other hand, the Lokpal’s ruling was premised on the argument that since the concerned High Court was established by an Act of Parliament for a newly formed state, its judges should logically fall within the ambit of Section 14(1)(f) of the Lokpal Act. The Lokpal maintained that its decision did not address the merits of the allegations but merely affirmed its jurisdiction over such cases. The order further stated that it had forwarded the complaint to the Chief Justice for guidance, without making any substantive findings on the complaint’s validity.

Court’s Judgment:

Taking a strong stance against the Lokpal’s interpretation, the Supreme Court stayed the operation of the order, preventing any further action on the matter until a final decision is reached. The bench highlighted the constitutional position of High Court judges, emphasizing that they are not ordinary public servants but constitutional functionaries with specific protections under the Constitution. The Court held that the Lokpal’s attempt to bring them under its jurisdiction was not in consonance with the legal framework established for judicial oversight. By staying the Lokpal’s order, the Supreme Court effectively halted any immediate action against the High Court judge in question, preserving judicial independence while it undertakes a more detailed examination of the legal issues involved. The next stage of the case will likely involve a detailed hearing to determine whether the Lokpal’s jurisdiction indeed extends to High Court judges and whether such an interpretation aligns with constitutional principles.