The Centre told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that every High Court judge holds a constitutional post, which means Lokpal has no jurisdiction to examine complaints against them. The limited question now before the court is whether the judges of constitutional courts are indeed public servants under the Lokpal Act.
In written submissions filed before the apex court, the Centre cited several judgements to argue that a judge of the High Court occupies a unique position and a constitutional office. It said, “As has been held in the judgement of Pratibha Bonnerjea, a judge of the High Court occupies a unique position and holds a constitutional office. He would not be able to discharge his duty without fear or favour, affection or ill will, unless he is totally independent of the executive.”
What was the Lokpal order?
The Lokpal held that judges of High Courts established by an act of Parliament fall within its jurisdiction. Section 14 of the Lokpal Act lays down the jurisdiction of the Lokpal. It specifies the people against whom complaints can be filed.
In its detailed order, Lokpal had cited the 1991 five-judge Constitution bench judgement in K. Veeraswamy vs Union of India which had held that a judge of any court is a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The judgement also stated that when a complaint is filed against a judge or Chief Justice of a High Court or a judge of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of India must be consulted before a criminal complaint is registered against such a judge.
Former Supreme Court Judge Justice K.M. Khanwilkar who is now heading the Lokpal bench forwarded the complaints in the present case to the Chief Justice of India for his consideration.
Though the Supreme Court already has an in-house procedure to enquire into serious allegations against judges, the Lokpal bypassed this through its order.
What was the 1991 judgement?
The judgement of 1991 had categorised judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court as public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1947. The Constitution bench had held that criminal cases against constitutional court judges could be registered only after consultation with the Chief Justice of India and in case the CJI allowed such an FIR to be registered, the government should again consult him on the question of granting sanction for prosecution.
Centre's stand
The Centre through the Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta told a special bench of three judges comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Suryakant and Abhay S. Oka that the Lokpal has no jurisdiction to examine such complaints and maintained that the limited question was whether judges of constitutional courts were indeed public servants under the Lokpal Act.
During the brief hearing, Solicitor General Mehta said it was clear from the Lokpal Act that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and said, “Only one section of the Lokpal Act is to be examined, whether Lokpal has the jurisdiction.”
The submissions further stated, “Lokpal has concluded that judges of Supreme Court are not amenable to the jurisdiction of Lokpal since this court is established by Article 124 of the Constitution of India and not under an Act of parliament as such. It is submitted in this regard that the same analogy should be applied in the case of High Courts, not only because of Article 214 but also because of other provisions of the Constitution with respect to the high court, which are similar to the provisions with respect to the Supreme Court. Therefore it is submitted that a judge of the high court cannot come within the purview of the 2013 Act and the impugned order ought to be set aside.”
“Any high court cannot be stated to be established by the Act of parliament since every High Court is established by the Constitution of India since they are mandatory when elements of the Indian constitutional scheme. It has been judicially accepted and held in various judgements of this court that high courts are constitutional courts established or constituted under Article 214 of the Constitution of India. The high courts cannot be said to be a body or an authority established by an Act of parliament,” reads the submissions which added any high court in India can neither be termed as a body or authority by an Act of parliament nor judge would fall within the expression any person in Section 14 (1) (f) of the 2013 Act.
Today's hearing
The Supreme Court on Tuesday appointed senior advocate Ranjit Kumar as an amicus curiae in a case related to the validity of the Lokpal’s order of January 27, 2025, holding that Lokpal can examine a complaint against a sitting High Court judge while the Centre reiterated its stand that every high court judge holds a constitutional post and can’t be probed.
The top court has now slated the hearing for April 15 and asked amicus curiae to assist the bench on behalf of the complainant.
On February 20, the top court had stayed the Lokpal’s order orally observing that it was something very very disturbing.
The top court had registered the case as suo motu and said that after the commencement of the Constitution, High Court judges are constitutional authorities and not mere statutory functionaries as the Lokpal had concluded.
What was the complaint about
The complaint before the Lokpal was filed against an additional judge of a High Court (name redacted in Lokpal order). It was alleged that the judge had influenced two other judges—an additional district judge and another judge of the same High Court—to rule in favour of a private company, allegedly a former client of the additional judge.
