The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would examine the issue over the jurisdiction of anti-corruption ombudsman Lokpal in entertaining complaints against sitting high court judges.
A three-judge special bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Surya Kant and Abhay S Oka was dealing with a suo motu proceeding initiated over the Lokpal's January 27 order on the issue.
While posting the hearing on April 15, the bench asked senior advocate Ranjit Kumar to assist it as an amicus curiae in the matter.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said the limited point was whether the Lokpal had jurisdiction.
"We will only consider the issue with regard to jurisdiction under the Lokpal Act," Justice Gavai said.
The top court on February 20 stayed the Lokpal's order, saying it was "something very, very disturbing" and concerned the independence of the judiciary.
It then issued notices and sought responses from the Centre, the Lokpal registrar and the complainant.
Mehta previously said that a high court judge would never fall within the ambit of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
The Lokpal had passed the order on two complaints filed against a sitting additional judge of a high court.
On Tuesday, the complainant appeared before the apex court and said he had filed an affidavit in support of his submissions.
"I want the honour of the Lokpal and also the judiciary to be uplifted," he said.
The bench asked the complainant whether he would engage a legal aid lawyer.
The complainant refused any legal assistance and said his submissions were already mentioned in the affidavit.
Pointing out a substantial question of law in the matter, Mehta said, "In my view, only one section of the Lokpal Act is to be examined."
When the bench said a counter affidavit was filed by the registrar of Lokpal, Mehta said it was almost a "reiteration of the order".
There was already a mechanism in place to deal with complaints against judges, the bench observed.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who is also assisting the court, said, "The fundamental issue will be, can a complaint be ever filed outside the remit of the constitutional authority."
Kumar, the bench said, would go through the complainant's submissions and other materials to have a holistic view of the matter before it decided the issue.
Mehta, who filed his written submissions, argued any high court couldn't be said to have been "established" by the Act of Parliament as the Constitution of India gave rise to each high court under the mandatory constitutional scheme.
The solicitor general, therefore, sought the Lokpal order to be set aside.
All high courts, he said, ought to be treated as constitutional courts established under Article 214 of the Constitution.
Mehta said it was a settled proposition of the law that a high court judge was a holder of constitutional office and couldn't be regarded as an "employee" of the government.
"Lokpal of India has further wrongly held in the impugned order that a judge of a high court will come within the ambit of expression 'any person' in clause (f) of section 14(1) of the 2013 Act," he added.
Referring to an apex court verdict, Mehta said it was held that a high court judge occupied a unique position and held a constitutional office.
The Lokpal order had said judges of the apex court were not amenable to Lokpal's jurisdiction since the Supreme Court was established by Article 124 of the Constitution and not under an Act of Parliament.
"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 high court, which are similar to the provision with respect to the Supreme Court," Mehta said.
A high court judge, he said, couldn't come within the purview of the 2013 Act.
The high court judge was alleged to have influenced a judge of the subordinate judiciary and a judge of the same high court set to deal with a suit filed against the complainant by a private company, which was to be favoured.
In its order, the Lokpal directed the complaints and relevant materials received in its registry in the two matters to be forwarded to the office of the CJI for his consideration.
Without examining the merits of the allegations, the Lokpal bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar held in the affirmative the question whether judges of the high courts established by an Act of Parliament came within the ambit of Section 14 of the 2013 Lokayuktas Act.
The order further said it would be "too naive" to argue that a high court judge would not come within the ambit of expression "any person" in clause (f) of section 14 (1) of the 2013 Act.
© 2025