Introduction
The Supreme Court of India has recently issued a significant ruling in a suo motu case concerning the jurisdiction of the Lokpal over High Court judges. The ruling, which stays the Lokpal’s decision to entertain a complaint against a sitting High Court judge, has ignited discussions about the independence of the judiciary and the extent of the Lokpal’s powers under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.

Background of the Case
On January 27, 2025, the Lokpal of India, headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, issued an order stating that High Court judges could fall within its jurisdiction. The case arose from a complaint alleging that a High Court judge influenced an Additional District Judge and another High Court judge to favor a private company in a legal dispute.

The Lokpal relied on Section 14(1)(f) of the Lokpal Act, which includes “any person in a body established by an Act of Parliament.” It reasoned that since the High Court in question was created for a newly formed state by an Act of Parliament, it could be covered under the provision.

Supreme Court’s Intervention
In response to the Lokpal’s order, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant, and Abhay S. Oka took up the matter suo motu and stayed the operation of the order. The Court also issued notices to the Union Government, the Registrar General of the Lokpal, and the complainant, while restricting the complainant from disclosing the name of the judge or the contents of the complaint.

Justice B.R. Gavai expressed strong disapproval of the Lokpal’s reasoning, calling it “something very disturbing.” Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta also contested the Lokpal’s interpretation, asserting that High Court judges are constitutional authorities and cannot be regarded as mere statutory functionaries.

Legal Arguments
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal and Senior Advocate B.H. Marlapalle supported the Supreme Court’s intervention. They contended that the Lokpal’s decision undermines the constitutional framework that safeguards judicial independence. The Supreme Court, in its order, emphasized that the matter is of “great significance concerning the independence of the judiciary.”

The Court also pointed out that the Constitution of India recognizes High Court judges as constitutional authorities under Articles 214–231, and their appointment, tenure, and removal are governed by constitutional provisions rather than statutory enactments. This contradicts the Lokpal’s view that High Court judges can be categorized under a parliamentary statute.

Implications for Judicial Independence
The ruling reinforces the principle that judicial officers, particularly High Court judges, must be free from external interference to maintain the judiciary’s integrity. The Supreme Court’s stay on the Lokpal’s order ensures that no precedent is set that could subject the judiciary to inquiries from statutory bodies, thereby preserving the doctrine of separation of powers.

Contradiction in Lokpal’s Rulings
Interestingly, the Lokpal had previously ruled that it lacks jurisdiction over Supreme Court judges, as the Supreme Court is not a “body established by an Act of Parliament.” The current ruling on High Court judges appears contradictory, as both tiers of the judiciary are constitutional authorities.

- Advertisement -

By staying the Lokpal’s order, the Supreme Court has addressed this inconsistency and reaffirmed the principle that judicial officers cannot be brought under the purview of the Lokpal’s jurisdiction.

Constitutional and Legal Framework
The independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of India’s democratic framework, enshrined in the Constitution. Articles 124 and 217 outline the appointment and removal process of Supreme Court and High Court judges, requiring a stringent impeachment process to ensure judicial autonomy.

The judiciary’s autonomy is further protected by various Supreme Court precedents, such as the Second Judges’ Case (1993) and the Third Judges’ Case (1998), which established the collegium system for judicial appointments, thereby reducing political interference.

The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, was enacted to curb corruption among public officials but does not explicitly list judges as within its scope. The Supreme Court’s decision to stay the Lokpal’s order aligns with this framework, ensuring that judicial officers remain insulated from statutory oversight bodies.

Potential Reforms and Future Course
While the Supreme Court’s decision provides clarity on the jurisdictional limits of the Lokpal, it also raises questions about judicial accountability. Critics argue that judges must be subject to scrutiny to prevent misconduct. The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, which was proposed but never enacted, sought to establish a mechanism for investigating judicial conduct.

Going forward, a more nuanced framework for judicial accountability may be needed, balancing the need for oversight with judicial independence. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a crucial precedent in defining these boundaries.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s stay on the Lokpal’s decision is a landmark ruling that upholds the judiciary’s independence and restricts the Lokpal’s jurisdiction over High Court judges. By reinforcing constitutional principles and addressing the potential overreach of statutory bodies, the ruling ensures that judicial officers remain accountable through constitutionally mandated mechanisms rather than external statutory oversight. As discussions on judicial accountability continue, this case highlights the delicate balance between oversight and autonomy in India’s legal system.

https://wp.me/peEAVD-4rQ