SC adjourns hearing on suo moto case relating to Lokpal's power to take complaints against HC judges

A Special Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant and Abhay S. Oka, when assembled in the post-lunch session, said that the suo moto case would take at least two hours of hearing and decided to list the matter for final hearing on April 30.

In the previous hearing, the Justice Gavai-led Bench appointed senior advocate Ranjit Kumar as an amicus curiae (friend of the court), clarifying that the apex court would only examine the question of jurisdiction of the Lokpal and would not enter into the merits of the allegations raised by the complainant.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the second highest law officer of the Centre, submitted that High Court judges, a constitutional functionary, will never fall within the ambit of the anti-corruption law.

In an interim order passed on February 20, the Supreme Court stayed the operation of the impugned decision of the Lokpal after the anti-corruption body referred the two complaints to the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) containing the allegations that a sitting additional judge of a high court influenced his colleague and an additional district judge who had to deal with the suit filed against the complainant by a private company.

"Something very very disturbing," the Justice Gavai-led Bench had remarked as it issued notice to the Union government and the Registrar of the Lokpal.

Ordering a stay on the impugned decision, the apex court remarked that the issue was of great importance as it related to the independence of the judiciary.

In an order passed on January 27, the Lokpal ruled that it can entertain complaints against judges of the High Court established by an Act of Parliament.

"(B)y 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 had said.

"We are conscious of the fact that a complaint before the Lokpal cannot be stricto sensu equated with a criminal case being registered under Section 154 of CrPC or the corresponding provision in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanita 2023.

However, considering the scheme of Section 20 of the Act of 2013 (Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act), on receipt of a complaint and before the Lokpal decides to proceed further by ordering a preliminary inquiry by its inquiry wing or any nominated agency or investigation, it is required to examine whether there exists a prima facie case to proceed further," it added.

However, the anti-corruption body had forwarded the subject complaints to the office of the CJI "for his kind consideration" and while awaiting his guidance, deferred consideration of the complaints for four weeks.

On an earlier occasion, the Lokpal had ruled that the Supreme Court, even though public servants in terms of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, are not amenable to its jurisdiction because they do not come within the sweep of the expression "public servant" predicated in Section 2(1)(o) read with Section 14 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.