SC Stays Lokpal Order To Entertain Complaints Against Sitting HC Judge

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday imposed a stay on the January 27 Lokpal order, which had asserted its jurisdiction over complaints against sitting high court justices.

In a striking rebuke, the Court described this assertion as “something very, very disturbing,” highlighting profound constitutional concerns regarding the breadth of the Lokpal’s authority.

A bench composed of Justices B. R. Gavai, Surya Kant, and A. S. Oka took suo motu cognizance of the order, signaling the gravity of the issue and scheduling a comprehensive hearing. Justice Gavai reiterated the importance of judicial scrutiny in this matter.

Court subsequently issued formal notices to the Central Government, the Lokpal, and the complainant, thereby subjecting the matter to judicial review.

To uphold procedural integrity and ensure judicial independence, the Supreme Court directed its registrar judicial to anonymize the complainant’s identity, with notice to be served through the Registrar Judicial of the High Court in the complainant’s jurisdiction.

Additionally, it imposed a prohibition on the complainant from disclosing the name of the implicated judge or revealing any substantive content of the allegations.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Central Government, presented a constitutional argument refuting the Lokpal’s authority in this matter. He maintained that “based upon the interpretation of ‘relevant provisions’ which the order relies upon, the High Court judge would never fall within the ambit of the Lokpal Act. There are constitutional provisions and some judgments to show this.”

His argument emphasized the constitutionally enshrined status of high court judges, which precludes them from being regarded as ordinary public officials.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal echoed these concerns, describing the development as “fraught with danger” and stressing the urgent need for doctrinal clarity. He warned of potential adverse implications for judicial independence if the Lokpal’s broad interpretation of its jurisdiction remained unchallenged.

Justices Gavai and Oka reaffirmed the constitutional status of high court judges, arguing that post-constitutional jurisprudence has elevated them beyond the category of statutory functionaries. “And each judge is the high court,” Mehta concurred, reinforcing the principle that judicial officers are constitutional entities endowed with distinct legal protections.

The contested Lokpal order, issued under the leadership of former Supreme Court Justice A. M. Khanwilkar, asserted that “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 (Lokpal) Act of 2013.” However, the Lokpal clarified that its decision pertained solely to the interpretative ambit of Section 14 and did not address the merits of the allegations.

Court is set to deliberate further on this pivotal issue on March 18, with its ruling expected to delineate the constitutional limitations of the Lokpal’s jurisdiction concerning members of the higher judiciary.

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International