NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked senior advocate Ranjit Kumar assist as an amicus curiae in a suo motu matter registered to examine validity of the Lokpal's order of January 27, 2025 holding that anti corruption watchdog can examine a complaint against a sitting High Court judge.
SC Appoints Amicus Curiae to Review Lokpal’s Jurisdiction on HC Judge Corruption Complaint
A bench of Justices B R Gavai, Surya Kant and Abhay S Oka, however, clarified that the court would examine the issue of jurisdiction and not the merits of the allegations.
During the proceedings, the complainant appeared in person and submitted that he has filed written submissions.
Supreme Court to Examine Lokpal’s Authority Over High Court Judges in Corruption Cases
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the Lokpal has filed its affidavit, reiterating the stand taken by it in the order.
He contended the Lokpal has no jurisdiction to examine such complaints.
The court, however, decided to appoint Kumar as amicus curiae to assist the bench on behalf of the complainant.
The Supreme Court had on February 20 stayed the Lokpal's order, orally observing that it was "something very very disturbing".
The court had then 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 had then issued notice to the Union government and the complainant.
The bench had then also said it would lay down law in this regard, as all the judges are appointed under the Constitution only.
The court also injuncted the complainant from disclosing the name of the High Court judge.
The court has registered the 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 advocates Kapil Sibal
and B H Marlapalle sought to assist the court.
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.
