Why in News?

The Supreme Court recently stayed a Lokpal order that had taken cognizance of a corruption complaint against an unnamed High Court (HC) judge. The Lokpal bench, led by former SC judge A M Khanwilkar, asserted its authority to hear such cases under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.

However, the SC found this development highly concerning and halted the proceedings. The next hearing is scheduled for March 18.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Supreme Court's Rationale Behind Staying Lokpal Order
• Legal Provisions on Complaints Against Judges
• The Lokpal Case Against the HC Judge
• Conclusion 

Supreme Court's Rationale Behind Staying Lokpal Order:

• Judicial independence: The SC has always balanced criticism of judges with the need to safeguard judicial independence.
• Concerns over executive overreach: Since the Lokpal is a statutory body under the executive, allowing it to hear complaints against judges could set a precedent that threatens judicial autonomy.
• Precedence of established procedures: The SC noted that accepting the Lokpal's ruling could bypass established procedures for investigating complaints against judges.

Legal Provisions on Complaints Against Judges:

• Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS): Section 77 of the IPC (1860) and Section 15 of the BNS (2023) provide that a judge cannot be charged with an offense for acts performed in the course of official duties.
• K Veeraswami v Union of India (1991):
  • This landmark case ruled that judges are public servants and can be investigated for corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (replaced by the new PCA enacted in 1988).
  • However, criminal proceedings against a judge require Presidential sanction, based on the advice of the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
  • This safeguard aims to prevent frivolous or politically motivated
• Distinction from judicial impeachment: The procedure for filing a case against a sitting judge is different from the procedure for impeaching a judge, where approval is required from Parliament.

The Lokpal Case Against the HC Judge:

• Allegations against the judge:
  • Two complaints were filed against an HC judge for allegedly influencing judicial proceedings in suits involving a private company.
  • The complainant alleged that the company was the judge’s former client when he was an advocate.
  • The Lokpal order did not address the merits of the case but focused on whether it had jurisdiction over an HC judge.
• Interpretation of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013:
  • The Act applies to public servants within and outside India.
  • Section 14 defines public servants, but does not explicitly include judges.
  • However, sub-section (f) includes officials from autonomous bodies established by an Act of Parliament or controlled by the Central Government.
• Differentiation between SC and HC judges:
  • In a separate case, the Lokpal ruled that it cannot hear cases against SC judges, as the SC was established under Article 124 of the Constitution and not an Act of Parliament.
  • However, the Lokpal argued that HC judges fall under its jurisdiction since several High Courts were established under the High Courts Act, 1861, and the Government of India Act, 1935.
    • These, according to the General Clauses Act 1897, are considered Acts of Parliament.
• Referral to the CJI:
  • Despite asserting its jurisdiction, the Lokpal recognized the need for caution, given the K Veeraswami precedent.
  • Before proceeding with an investigation, the Lokpal decided to refer the complaint to the CJI for guidance.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s intervention underscores concern over potential executive overreach and the protection of judicial independence.

The case also highlights ongoing legal ambiguities regarding the jurisdiction of the Lokpal over the judiciary.

The SC’s final ruling will have significant implications for the accountability mechanisms of higher judiciary officials in India.