SC stays Lokpal order on entertaining complaints against sitting HC judges
Terms it ‘very disturbing’
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the Lokpal order on entertaining complaints against sitting high court judges saying it was “something very, very disturbing” and concerned the independence of the judiciary.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai, Surya Kant and Abhay S Oka issued notice and sought responses from the Centre, the Lokpal registrar and the person who filed complaints against a sitting high court judge.
“Issue notice to the Union of India, Registrar, Lokpal of India and the complainant, returnable on March 18 at 10.30 am,” the bench said.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said a high court judge would never fall within the ambit of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
Dealing with Lokpal’s order on two specific complaints against the sitting high court judge, the bench, issued an injunction to prevent the complainant from disclosing the name of the judge and directed him to keep the complaint confidential.
The apex court was dealing with a suo motu case initiated after the Lokpal passed the order on January 27.
The bench directed the registrar concerned to mask the identity of the complainant and serve notice upon him at his residence through the registrar (judicial) of the high court.
“In the meantime there shall be stay of the order dated January 27, 2025 passed by the Lokpal of India…,” it added.
The top court went on to hold, “We injunct the complainant from disclosing the name of the judge against whom he has filed the complaint. The complainant is further directed to keep the complaint strictly confidential.”
When the bench assembled, Justice Gavai told Mehta, “We propose to issue notice to the Union of India.”
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who also appeared in the matter, offered to assist the bench in dealing with the matter.
“Something very very disturbing,” said Justice Gavai.
It is fraught with danger, Sibal said and sought a stay on the Lokpal’s order.
“I think a law should be laid down,” he added.
The bench noted that Sibal and senior advocate B H Marlapalle had “graciously offered” to assist the court, as the matter was of “great significance” and concerned the independence of the judiciary.
“Once the finding that the Lokpal has a jurisdiction stands stayed, I think they are aware what are the ramifications of this order. If they don’t understand this, then we are here,” said Justice Gavai.
The bench has asked for the written submission to be filed in the meantime.
The Lokpal passed the order on two complaints filed against a sitting additional judge of the high court.
The complaints allege that he influenced an additional district judge in the state and a judge of the same high court slated to deal with a suit filed against the complainant by a private company to favour the firm.
The private company, it was alleged, was earlier a client of the high court judge in question while he was practising as an advocate at the Bar.
In its order, the Lokpal directed the complaints and relevant materials received in its registry in two matters be forwarded to the office of the CJI for his kind consideration.
“Awaiting the guidance of the Chief Justice of India, consideration of these complaints, for the time being, is deferred until four weeks from today, keeping in mind the statutory time frame to dispose of the complaint in terms of Section 20 (4) of the Act of 2013,” said the Lokpal bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar on January 27.
The Lokpal added, “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 noted it would be “too naive” to argue that a high court judge would not come within the ambit of expression “any person” in clause (f) of section 14 (1) of the 2013 Act.
