SC hears suo moto case on Lokpal’s jurisdiction over sitting High Court judges

Today, a Special Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant, and A.S. Oka appointed an amicus to assist the Court in the case concerning Lokpal’s jurisdiction over sitting High Court judges. The Court had taken suo moto cognisance of the case and had previously stayed a Lokpal Order that had given itself such jurisdiction.

The Court will decide if the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, permits the anti-corruption ombudsman to examine allegations against judges of constitutional courts.

The controversial Lokpal Order

The Order in question comes in a complaint filed against a sitting Additional Judge of a High Court. The complainant alleged that the judge had influenced judicial proceedings in favour of a private company. On 27 January 2025, the Lokpal, led by former Supreme Court judge Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, ruled that it possessed the jurisdiction to investigate such complaints. The Order stated that judges of High Courts established by Acts of Parliament fell within the ambit of Section 14 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act.

The Supreme Court took suo moto cognisance of the issue and stayed the Order on 20 February. “It is something very, very disturbing,” Justice Gavai had said. 

Examining the Lokpal Act

During the hearing today, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union, emphasised the need to define the Lokpal’s jurisdiction concerning complaints against judges. “Only one section of the Lokpal Act is to be examined… The limited issue is whether the Lokpal has the jurisdiction in case of complaints against the Hon’ble judges, what should be the method, what should be the mechanism,” he said.

Justice Gavai responded that an existing mechanism already exists. He appears to be referring to the in-house procedure established by the Supreme Court in 1999. This procedure addresses allegations of misconduct against sitting judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. 

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal pointed out that the fundamental issue was whether a complaint could be filed “outside the remit of constitutional authority.” In response, Mehta cited the judgement in K. Veeraswamy v Union of India (1991). In the case, the Court had held that an FIR filed against a judge required the sanction of the Chief Justice of India. “The question of whether somebody can go to a police station and register an FIR against a constitutional court judge is not the subject matter here… We have judgements occupying the field, and that’s not the remit of this Court.”

Do you need assistance?

The complainant appeared in person at the hearing today. “I want the honour of the Lokpal and judiciary to be upheld,” he said. Justice Kant informed him that he could get free legal assistance if needed but the complainant declined. “Whatever I have given in writing may be considered,” he said 

Justice Gavai, however, requested Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar to step in as the amicus curiae to ensure a balanced consideration of arguments. “Though he doesn’t want any legal representation, could we request you [to assist]? The Solicitor General and Mr. Sibal are largely on the same page, but if there’s another viewpoint, can you assist us?” he asked. Justice Kant also added that “in all fairness, it should not look one-sided.” 

Before concluding, Justice Gavai assured the complainant of confidentiality, stating, “We will protect your identity and keep your name masked. We will consider the cause you are trying to expose,” he said. The Court also directed the registry to provide all submissions to the solicitors and counsels involved. 

The matter is scheduled to be heard next on 15 April 2025.