Supreme Court initiates suo motu case after Lokpal says it can entertain complaints against High Court judges

In a significant development, the Supreme Court has initiated a suo motu case after the Lokpal ruled that it can entertain complaints against High Court judges under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013..The Lokpal had given the finding on January 27 while dealing with two complaints against a High Court judge accusing him of influencing an Additional District Judge and another High Court judge in a suit.Pertinently, the complaints were also forwarded to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) by Lokpal. The further action on the complaints against the High Court judge has been deferred by Lokpal for the time being."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 said in the order..In light of these, the Supreme Court has now initiated a suo motu case on whether the Lokpal can entertain complaints against High Court judges..The suo motu case initiated by the top court will be heard by a Bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Surya Kant and Abhay S Oka on Thursday. The case is titled "IN RE : ORDER DATED 27/01/2025 PASSED BY LOKPAL OF INDIA AND ANCILLIARY ISSUES"..On January 27, the Lokpal Bench headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar ruled that a High Court judge meets the definition of 'public servant' and that the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 does not exclude the judges.However, Lokpal also decided to first approach the CJI for guidance on the issue and accordingly deferred further action on the complaints."Awaiting the guidance of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, consideration of these complaints, for the time being, is deferred until four weeks from today, keeping in mind the statutory time frame to dispose of the complaint in terms of Section 20 (4) of the Act of 2013," the Lokpal said in its order.Pertinently, the Lokpal redacted the name of the judge and the High Court before making its decision public..In its January 27 order, the Lokpal noted that it had recently ruled that the judges of the Supreme Court are not amenable to its jurisdiction since the top court is a body or adjudicatory authority established in terms of Section 124 of the Constitution of India and not under an Act of parliament..However, the Lokpal said that High Courts on the other hand were established under the laws enacted by the parliament. Accordingly, it ruled that High Court meets the definitions of institutions over which Lokpal has jurisdiction under Section 14(1)(f) of the 2013 Act.."The High Court would qualify the description of at least two juristic entities "by whatever name called", out of the eight mentioned in Section 14(1)(f) of the Act of 2013 established by an Act of Parliament, which are mutually exclusive descriptions owing to use of expression "or" in that provision," the order reads.The Lokpal added that it would be too naive to argue that a High Court judge will not come within the ambit of expression "any person" in clause (f) of Section 14(1)(f) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013."The expression "Judge" has always been understood as not only every person who is officially designated as a Judge, but also every person. To wit, it will be useful to advert to the definition of Judge in Section 19 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as also to the enactment of Anti Corruption Laws (Amendment) Act, 1964 and re-enacted Section 21 with the third category of public servant, including sub-clause (iv) of clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act of 1988 - defining expression public servant to mean any Judge," it added. .Further, it referred to the majority view in K Veeraswamy vs. Union of India that a judge of a superior court "cannot be" excluded from the definition of public servant and would squarely fall within the purview of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (analogous to Act of 19880."Applying the underlying principle and the logic as given in the reported decision, the expression "any person" in Section 14(1)(f) of the Act of 2013 must include a Judge of the High Court established by the Act of Parliament as well," the Lokpal ruled..However, the Lokpal also took into consideration another view in K Veeraswamy ruling stating that the President of India will have to consult the CJI before taking any action in such matters to protect a judge from frivolous prosecution.The thrust of the exposition of the majority view is that no criminal case shall be registered against a judge of the High Court, Chief Justice of the High Court or judge of the Supreme Court, unless the CJI is consulted in the matter, it explained.However, it also noted that a complaint before the Lokpal cannot strictly be equated with a criminal case. Nevertheless, considering the scheme of the Lokpal Act, the Lokpal decided to first approach the CJI..[Read Lokpal order]