The Supreme Court stayed a Lokpal order that brought High Court judges under its jurisdiction, calling the interpretation “very disturbing.”
Judicial Independence Concern: A Special Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant, and A.S. Oka (all senior Supreme Court judges and Collegium members) took suo motu cognizance of the matter, stating it affected judicial independence.
Legal Assistance & Government Representation:
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and B.H. Marlapalle assisted the court.
Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta represented the Union government.
Notice Issued & Next Hearing Date:
The Bench issued notices to the Centre, Lokpal Registrar, and the complainant.
The next hearing is scheduled for March 18.
Confidentiality Order:
The complainant was injuncted from revealing the High Court judge’s name.
The complaint’s contents must remain confidential.
Arguments on Jurisdiction:
Kapil Sibal emphasized the need for legal clarity on this issue.
Tushar Mehta stated that High Court judges could never fall under Lokpal’s jurisdiction.
Background of Lokpal Order:
Issued on January 27 by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar (former Supreme Court judge).
Based on a complaint that an Additional High Court judge influenced another judge to rule in favor of a private company, which was previously a client of the judge during his advocacy years.
Lokpal’s Justification:
Declared High Court judges as ‘public servants’ under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
Claimed jurisdiction based on historical establishment:
High Courts were created by British Parliamentary Acts (Indian High Courts Act, 1861 & Government of India Act, 1935).
Constitution only recognized (not established) High Courts under Article 214.
In contrast, the Supreme Court was fully established by the Constitution under Article 124.
Contradiction with January 3 Lokpal Order:
On January 3, Lokpal ruled it had no jurisdiction over Supreme Court judges, including the Chief Justice of India.
Reason: The Supreme Court is not a body established by Parliament or controlled by the Central government.
January 27 Order’s Interpretation:
Lokpal found the argument that High Court judges were outside its jurisdiction “too naive”.
Cited Section 14(1)(f) of the 2013 Act, which grants jurisdiction over officials of bodies established by an Act of Parliament.
Argued that High Courts (being created by British-era Parliamentary Acts) fall under this clause.
Supreme Court’s Response:
Concerned as Lokpal had forwarded the complaint to the Chief Justice of India for consultation before initiating a preliminary inquiry.
Justice A.S. Oka clarified: “All judges have been appointed under the Constitution.”
COMMENTS