Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court has initiated a suo motu case on Lokpal’s jurisdiction over High Court judges, sparking debate on judicial independence.
- The Lokpal has jurisdiction over High Court judges if they are ‘persons in a body established by an Act of Parliament’ under Section 14(1)(f) of the Lokpal Act 2013.
- The Supreme Court’s decision has implications for the autonomy of High Court judges and the limits of the Lokpal’s powers.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has taken suo motu cognizance of a decision by the Lokpal of India asserting its jurisdiction over High Court judges.
A Special Bench, comprising Justices B R Gavai, Surya Kant and Abhay S Oka, will hear the matter on Thursday (tomorrow) in the case titled In Re: Order Dated January 27, 2025, Passed By Lokpal Of India and Ancillary Issues.
In its order dated January 27, the Lokpal, headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice A M Khanwilkar, ruled that a High Court judge qualifies as a “person in a body established by an Act of Parliament” under Section 14(1)(f) of the Lokpal Act.
The Lokpal reasoned that since the High Court in question was created by an Act of Parliament for a newly formed State, it falls within the ambit of Section 14(1)(f).
“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.
The Lokpal was adjudicating a complaint alleging that a High Court judge influenced an Additional District Judge and another High Court judge to favour a private company in a legal suit.
Without commenting on the merits of the allegations, the Lokpal forwarded the complaint to the Chief Justice for 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,” the order stated.
Previously, the Lokpal had ruled that it could not exercise jurisdiction over the Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge, as the Supreme Court is not a body established by an Act of Parliament.
The Lokpal’s order did not disclose the identity of the judge or the High Court involved in the case.
