NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed for a “fair debate” regarding the controversial topic of whether the anti-corruption watchdog Lokpal should have the authority to investigate allegations against high court judges. This comes despite the apex court’s initial impression that such a move could be detrimental to the independence of constitutional courts.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta strongly opposed the idea of the Lokpal asserting jurisdiction over high court judges. He informed a panel comprising Justices B R Gavai, Surya Kant, and A S Oka that the January 27 order issued by the full bench led by Lokpal A M Khanwilkar, which sought to navigate inquiry powers over high court judges, contradicts established procedures set by Supreme Court rulings for handling grievances against judges of constitutional courts.
The judges agreed, emphasizing that the matter was already governed by an existing mechanism for addressing complaints against Supreme Court and high court judges. Mehta insisted that the Supreme Court should only evaluate Section 14(1)(f) of the Lokpal Act, which served as the foundation for the Lokpal’s January 27 order.
Kapil Sibal, president of the Supreme Court Bar Association and a senior advocate, highlighted that as per the Supreme Court’s 1991 Veeraswami judgment, obtaining the Chief Justice’s consent is essential before proceeding against a constitutional court judge. “The law needs clarification to guarantee that complaints of this nature (pertaining to corruption and misuse of power) are directed solely to the Chief Justice and not to any other entity,” he stated.
The Lokpal’s order was based on a complaint alleging that a high court judge had influenced an additional district judge and another high court judge who were presiding over cases filed by the complainant against a private corporation. Nonetheless, Sibal pointed out that there was a broader issue at stake. “What happens if someone approaches a police station to file an FIR regarding a criminal act allegedly committed by a high court judge? The principal concern is whether a complaint can be lodged against Supreme Court and high court judges outside the constitutional framework and the regulations established through Supreme Court judgments. This case may require the court to address that issue,” he remarked.
The Solicitor General argued that whether a person could report to a police station to file an FIR was outside the scope of the Lokpal’s January 27 order. He reiterated that the procedure for complaining against constitutional court judges was set by the Veeraswami ruling.
The bench concurred, stating it would look into the issues concerning Lokpal’s authority to handle complaints against high court judges. Justice Kant remarked that proceedings should appear balanced and suggested appointing an amicus to provide an opposing perspective for a comprehensive discussion on the matter. In its order, the Lokpal clarified that it lacked jurisdiction over Supreme Court judges. The bench designated senior advocate Ranjit Kumar as amicus and scheduled the next hearing for April 15.
