The Supreme Court has halted a Lokpal order attempting to bring sitting High Court judges under its jurisdiction, raising concerns over judicial independence.
NEW DELHI: On February 20, 2025, a Special Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant, and A.S. Oka, stayed a controversial Lokpal Order that sought to bring sitting High Court judges under its jurisdiction. The order, passed by a seven-member Lokpal bench headed by former Supreme Court judge A.M. Khanwilkar, had ruled that judges of High Courts established through Acts of Parliament fell within the ambit of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
The Supreme Court took suo moto cognizance of the issue on February 19, 2025, citing serious concerns about the independence of the judiciary.
Background of the Lokpal Order
The Lokpal Order was issued in response to a complaint against an Additional Judge of a High Court (whose name and the name of the High Court were redacted). The complaint alleged that the judge influenced two other judges—an Additional District Judge and another High Court judge—to rule in favor of a private company, which was reportedly a former client of the Additional Judge.
Key Observations of the Lokpal Order
- The Lokpal bench ruled that judges of High Courts established by an Act of Parliament fall within its jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Lokpal Act.
- The order clarified: “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.”
- The Lokpal, however, did not examine the merits of the allegations.
- The Order cited a previous decision from January 3, 2025, which dismissed a complaint against former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, on the grounds that the Supreme Court is established under Article 124 of the Constitution, not an Act of Parliament.
- The Lokpal justified its jurisdiction over High Court judges based on the wording of Section 14(1)(f), arguing that a judge of a High Court is included under “any person” in the Act.
Legal Precedent: K. Veeraswamy Case (1991)
In K. Veeraswamy v. Union of India (1991), a five-judge Constitution Bench ruled that:
- Judges of all courts are public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
- Before a criminal case is registered against a High Court judge, Chief Justice of a High Court, or a Supreme Court judge, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) must be consulted.
- The President, in consultation with the CJI, must grant sanction for prosecution.
The Lokpal, acknowledging this ruling, forwarded the complaint against the Additional Judge to the Chief Justice of India for consideration. It also deferred further proceedings for four weeks, citing the statutory time frame in Section 20(4) of the Lokpal Act.
Supreme Court’s Intervention and Observations
The Supreme Court’s suo moto intervention was triggered by concerns over whether the Lokpal’s decision violated judicial independence. During the hearing, key observations were made:
The Supreme Court’s suo moto intervention was triggered by concerns over whether the Lokpal’s decision violated judicial independence. During the hearing, key observations were made:
Justice B.R. Gavai expressed serious concerns, calling the Lokpal’s ruling
“very, very disturbing.”
He noted that
“the separation of powers and judicial autonomy were essential to maintaining constitutional governance”
Justice A.S. Oka stressed that
“all judges are appointed under the Constitution, making them constitutional authorities“
He asserted that
” statutory bodies like the Lokpal cannot investigate sitting judges. Citing Article 50 of the Constitution, which mandates the separation of judiciary from the executive”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta (Appearing for the Union Government), supported
the challenge to the Lokpal’s jurisdiction . He argued that
“High Court judges do not fall under the Lokpal’s purview”
Cited past judicial precedents, including the Veeraswamy case, to support the argument. He emphasized that allowing the
“Lokpal to investigate sitting judges could set a dangerous precedent undermining the constitutional safeguards“
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (Representing the petitioner) Requested an
“immediate stay on the Lokpal’s Order”
He highlighted that
“judicial accountability must be maintained through constitutional mechanisms, not statutory oversight“
In response, the Supreme Court stayed the Lokpal Order and issued notices to:
- The Union of India
- The Registrar of Lokpal
- The Complainant (whose details remain confidential)
ALSO READ: Supreme Court to Hear Suo Motu Case on Lokpal’s Authority Over Judges Today (March 18)
Recent Developments: Supreme Court Appoints Amicus Curiae
At the March 18, 2025 hearing, the Supreme Court revisited the case and took key actions:
- Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist in the matter.
- The next hearing was scheduled for April 15, 2025, at 2 PM.
- The Court directed that all pleadings be shared among the parties.
- The Registry was instructed to accept filings from all counsels, even those without an Advocate-on-Record (AoR).
Complainant’s Stand
- The Complainant appeared in person and reaffirmed their commitment to judicial accountability.
- Justice Surya Kant offered the Complainant the option of seeking legal assistance, but they declined, stating that they had submitted their arguments in writing.
Legal Questions to be Addressed on April 15
The Supreme Court’s upcoming hearing will determine:
- Does the Lokpal have jurisdiction over sitting High Court judges?
- Can a statutory body override the constitutional framework governing judicial accountability?
- How does the Lokpal Act interact with the Veeraswamy ruling?
- What are the implications for the independence of the judiciary?
This case holds constitutional significance, as it could redefine the accountability framework for higher judiciary members. The Supreme Court’s final ruling will determine whether the Lokpal can legally investigate complaints against sitting High Court judges, or if such oversight remains the exclusive domain of the judiciary under constitutional safeguards.
Case Title:
IN RE : ORDER DATED 27/01/2025 PASSED BY LOKPAL OF INDIA AND ANCILLIARY ISSUES
SMW(C) No. 2/2025.
READ MORE REPORTS ON SUPREME COURT
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
