In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court has initiated a suo motu case to examine whether the Lokpal of India can entertain complaints against High Court judges under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. The move follows a January 27 order by the Lokpal, which ruled that High Court judges fall within the ambit of ‘public servant’ under Section 14 of the Act.
A Bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Surya Kant, and Abhay S Oka will hear the case on Thursday under the title “IN RE: ORDER DATED 27/01/2025 PASSED BY LOKPAL OF INDIA AND ANCILLIARY ISSUES.”
Lokpal’s Ruling: High Court Judges Under Its Jurisdiction
The Lokpal arrived at this finding while examining complaints against a sitting High Court judge, who was accused of influencing an Additional District Judge and another High Court judge in a suit. Although the names of the judge and the High Court were redacted, the ruling set a precedent by affirming that High Court judges could be investigated under the 2013 Act.
“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 Lokpal stated in its order.
Supreme Court Steps In: Can Lokpal Probe High Court Judges?
While the Lokpal deferred further action on the complaints, it sought guidance from the Chief Justice of India (CJI) before proceeding. The Supreme Court has now taken cognizance of the matter, signaling a possible constitutional review of the Lokpal’s jurisdiction over the higher judiciary.
Legal Precedents and Constitutional Concerns
In its order, the Lokpal relied on past judgments, including the K Veeraswamy vs. Union of India case, where it was held that a superior court judge cannot be excluded from the definition of a ‘public servant’ under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
“The expression ‘Judge’ has always been understood as not only every person who is officially designated as a Judge but also every person [who performs judicial functions]. To wit, it will be useful to advert to the definition of Judge in Section 19 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),” the Lokpal observed.
However, it also acknowledged a contrary view in K Veeraswamy, which emphasized that before any criminal case is registered against a High Court or Supreme Court judge, the President must consult the CJI to prevent frivolous prosecution.
While the Lokpal noted that a complaint before it cannot strictly be equated with a criminal case, it chose to defer further action until the CJI’s guidance was received.
Implications of the Case
The Supreme Court’s decision to take up the matter suo motu underscores the sensitive balance between judicial independence and accountability. If the Court upholds the Lokpal’s interpretation, it could pave the way for greater oversight of the higher judiciary. However, if it rules against the Lokpal, it could set new limits on anti-corruption investigations involving judges.
With constitutional implications at stake, all eyes will be on the Supreme Court’s upcoming hearing on Thursday, which could shape the future of judicial accountability in India.
