The Supreme Court on Tuesday postponed the hearing on a case related to a Lokpal decision until April 15. The case involves the Lokpal accepting a complaint against a High Court judge, which has raised legal questions.
A special bench, consisting of Justices BR Gavai, Surya Kant, and Abhay S Oka, has appointed Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar to provide legal assistance on behalf of the complainant, who had filed the complaint against the judge.
Court appoints Ranjit Kumar as Amicus in case on Lokpal’s controversial order against HC judges.
Although the complainant stated that he could argue the case himself, the court decided to appoint an experienced lawyer to ensure a fair hearing.
The Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, along with Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and BH Marlapalle, are arguing that the Lokpal does not have the authority to investigate complaints against High Court judges. They claim that the Lokpal Act clearly does not grant such jurisdiction, and the court only needs to examine one specific section of the law to confirm this.
Justice Gavai clarified that the court will only determine whether the Lokpal has jurisdiction in this matter and will not discuss the allegations against the judge.
The Lokpal has submitted its response to the Supreme Court, but the Solicitor General dismissed it as merely repeating its previous stance.
Case Background
Previously, the Supreme Court had put a temporary hold on the Lokpal’s decision while issuing notices to the central government, the Lokpal’s Registrar General, and the complainant. Justice Gavai had expressed concern over the reasoning provided by the Lokpal, while Justices Gavai and Oka pointed out that High Court judges, as constitutional authorities, should not be treated as ordinary government officials.
On January 27, the Lokpal reviewed a complaint accusing a sitting High Court judge of influencing another judge and an Additional District Judge to rule in favor of a private company in a legal case.
The Lokpal, led by former Supreme Court judge Justice AM Khanwilkar, decided that the High Court judge falls under the category of individuals covered by Section 14(1)(f) of the Lokpal Act. The reasoning was that since the High Court in question was created by an Act of Parliament for a newly formed State, it should be included under this law.
The Lokpal stated that it would be incorrect to claim that a High Court judge does not qualify as “any person” under the relevant section of the Act.
Without commenting on whether the allegations were true or not, the Lokpal forwarded the complaint to the Chief Justice for further guidance. The order clarified that the only issue decided was whether High Court judges, whose courts were established by an Act of Parliament, fall under the Lokpal’s jurisdiction. It emphasized that the Lokpal had not examined the actual allegations.
The Lokpal’s order did not reveal the name of the judge or specify which High Court or State was involved.
Earlier, the Lokpal had decided that it does not have the authority to investigate the Chief Justice of India or Supreme Court judges because the Supreme Court was not created through an Act of Parliament.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
