Supreme Court stays Lokpal's 'very very disturbing order' on corruption complaint against High Court judge

A bench of Justices B R Gavai, Surya Kant, and Abhay S Oka issued notice to the Union government and fixed the matter for consideration after the Holi break.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the Lokpal's order of January 27, 2025, which held that it can examine corruption complaint against a sitting High Court judge.

The top court said the order was "something very very disturbing".

A bench of Justices B R Gavai, Surya Kant and Abhay S Oka said that after the commencement of the Constitution, High Court judges are constitutional authorities and not mere statutory functionaries as the Lokpal had concluded.

The court issued notice to the Union government and the complainant and fixed the matter for consideration after Holi break.

The court said it would lay down law in this regard, as all the judges are appointed under the Constitution only. The bench ordered the complainant not to disclose contents of the complaint and "keep it strictly confidential".

The court also injuncted the complainant from disclosing the name of the High Court judge.

The bench directed its registrar judicial “to mask the identity of the complainant and serve him through the registrar judicial of the high court where the complainant resides.”

The court has registered a suo motu matter as the Lokpal bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar held judges of the High Court would be amenable to its jurisdiction to investigate allegations of corruption.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, rendering assistance to the court, contended the order was required to be stayed. He said the law has to be laid down in this regard.

Senior advocate B H Marlapalle also sought to assist the court.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted the High Court judges would not fall within the ambit of the Lokpal Act, 2013. He said there are judgments which stated just because the High Courts were created by earlier enactment would not change the status of the judges.

"The High Court judges would never fall within the ambit of the Lokpal Act. There are constitutional provisions and some judgments to show this," he said.

In the matter, the two complaints were filed by the same complainant against a sitting Additional Judge (name redacted) High Court, alleging that the named judge had influenced the concerned Additional District Judge, in the State and a judge of the same High Court who had to deal with the suit filed against the complainant by a private company, to favour that company. It was alleged that the private company was earlier client of the named High Court Judge, while he was practicing as an advocate at the Bar.

In its order on January 27, the Lokpal said, "We make it amply clear that by this order we have decided a singular issue finally as to whether the judges of the High Court established by an Act of Parliament come within the ambit of Section 14 of the Act of 2013, in the affirmative. No more and no less. In that, we have not looked into or examined the merits of the allegations at all".

The Lokpal had then sought also guidance from the Chief Justice of India for looking into complaints filed against a sitting judge and an additional judge of one High Court.

It had then relied upon the dictum of the Constitution bench in K Veeraswami's case (1991), which stated no criminal case can be registered against a judge of the High Court, Chief Justice of the High Court or judge of the Supreme Court unless Chief Justice of India is consulted in the matter.

However, it had earlier on January 3, 2025 held that judges of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of India are not amenable to its jurisdiction for they do not come within the sweep of definition of public servants and the Supreme Court has been established by the Constitution and not by an Act of Parliament.