Important Development: Supreme Court Halts Lokpal’s Order Regarding High Court Judges’ Jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court has paused a recent decision by the Lokpal of India that claimed authority over High Court judges. A Bench consisting of Justice BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, and Justice Abhay S Oka took notice of the situation and raised serious concerns about the Lokpal’s ruling. This case, overseen by Justice AM Khanwilkar, involved accusations against a current High Court judge for allegedly swaying an Additional District Judge and another High Court judge to support a private company in a civil case. The Court is now looking into whether the Lokpal Act applies to higher judiciary matters. During the hearing, Justice Gavai stated, “Mr. Solicitor, we would like to issue notice. Something very, very disturbing.”
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the case, offered to help the Court, stressing the need for clarity on the Lokpal’s authority over judges. “The law needs to be laid down. The order needs to be stayed,” Sibal argued. Justice Gavai agreed with Sibal and decided to stay the Lokpal’s order, scheduling the next hearing for after Holi, likely on March 18. While issuing notice in this matter, Justice Gavai noted, “The matter is of great significance.”
SC produced an Interim Order with following key points-
- Notice issued in the suo motu proceedings.
- Stay granted on the Lokpal’s order.
- Injunction placed on the complainant from revealing the name of the Hon’ble Judge involved or disclosing the details of the complaint.
On January 27, Lokpal, former Supreme Court judge Justice AM Khanwilkar, issued an order. This ruling stated that Section 14(1)(f) includes High Court judges as “persons in a body established by an Act of Parliament.” The reasoning was that the High Court was set up for a new State through a Parliamentary Act, so its judges are covered by the Lokpal’s authority. The Lokpal noted, “It would be too naive to say that a High Court Judge is not included in the term ‘any person’ in clause (f) of Section 14(1) of the Act of 2013.” This decision came from a complaint against a sitting High Court judge, alleging that he improperly influenced an Additional District Judge and another High Court judge to support a private company in a case. However, the Lokpal did not assess the complaint’s validity and instead sent it to the Chief Justice of the relevant High Court for further review.
Cause Title: In Re: Order dated 27/01/2025 passed by Lokpal of India and Ancilliary Issues [SMW(C) No. 2/2025; Diary No. 9527/2025]
