Background:
- On January 27, the Lokpal passed an order claiming jurisdiction to investigate High Court judges under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
- The order was based on a complaint alleging that an Additional High Court judge influenced judicial decisions in favor of a private company.
Relevance : GS 2(Judiciary)
Supreme Court’s Response:
- A Special Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant, and A.S. Oka stayed the Lokpal order.
- The Court termed the Lokpal’s interpretation as “very disturbing” and noted that it could undermine judicial independence.
- Issued notices to:
- Union Government
- Registrar of Lokpal
- The complainant (with an injunction to maintain confidentiality).
- Next hearing scheduled for March 18, 2025.
Lokpal’s Reasoning:
- Declared High Court judges as“public servants“ under Section 14(1)(f) of the 2013 Act.
- Argued that High Courts were established under British Parliamentary Acts (Indian High Courts Act, 1861; Government of India Act, 1935) and not directly by the Constitution.
- Distinguished High Courts from the Supreme Court, which is solely a creation of the Constitution (Article 124).
Contrasting Orders by Lokpal:
- January 3, 2025: Lokpal stated it had no jurisdiction over Supreme Court judges, including the CJI.
- January 27, 2025: Asserted jurisdiction over High Court judges, deeming the contrary argument“too naive.”
Judicial Independence vs. Accountability:
- The Supreme Court’s concern centers on safeguarding judicial independence from external oversight that could threaten impartiality.
- Lokpal’s stance focuses on accountability under anti-corruption laws.
Constitutional & Legal Provisions Involved:
- Article 214: Establishes High Courts for each state.
- Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 – Section 14(1)(f): Defines jurisdiction over public servants.
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Considers judges as public servants but doesn’t extend Lokpal’s jurisdiction to them.
Implications:
- Raises constitutional questions regarding checks and balances between the judiciary and statutory bodies.
- Outcome may set a precedent for future oversight mechanisms concerning the judiciary.
