The Supreme Court of India, in a significant move, has put a temporary halt to the Lokpal’s decision to assert jurisdiction over High Court Judges. This development came after the apex court took suo motu cognizance of the matter on Thursday, February 20. The bench, comprising Justices BR Gavai, Surya Kant, and Abhay S. Oka, issued notices to the Union Government, the Registrar General of the Lokpal, and the original complainant involved in the case.
The controversy stems from a Lokpal order dated January 27, where it was declared that High Court judges could fall under its jurisdiction if the High Court was established by an Act of Parliament for a newly formed state. This interpretation led the Lokpal to entertain a complaint alleging that a sitting High Court judge had improperly influenced judicial proceedings to benefit a private entity.
Justice Gavai, during the proceedings, remarked on the “very disturbing” nature of the Lokpal’s reasoning, questioning the appropriateness of bringing Constitutional authorities such as High Court judges under the purview of the Lokpal. The Supreme Court’s intervention underscores the delicate balance between oversight bodies and the judiciary’s independence.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued against the Lokpal’s interpretation, supporting the notion that High Court judges were never meant to be within the Lokpal’s oversight. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal also criticized the decision, advocating for its stay to preserve the sanctity and independence of the judiciary.
The Lokpal had previously decided that it could not oversee the Chief Justice of India or Supreme Court judges, as these positions are not established by an Act of Parliament. However, its recent assertion regarding High Court judges has sparked a legal debate on the scope of its authority and the protections afforded to judicial figures under the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has now enjoined the complainant from disclosing the identity of the High Court judge or details of the complaint, emphasizing the need for confidentiality in such sensitive matters. The court’s order not only stays the operation of the Lokpal’s decision but also seeks further clarification on the application of the Lokpal Act to judiciary members.
