New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the Lokpal's order which held complaints filed against a sitting high court judge were amenable to its jurisdiction, by terming it "something very, very disturbing."
SC Halts Lokpal’s Jurisdiction Over HC Judge, Calls Order ‘Very Disturbing’
A special bench of Justices B R Gavai, Surya Kant and Abhay S Oka issued notice to the Centre and others seeking their responses.
The court's order came on a suo motu proceedings initiated by the Supreme Court in respect of the order passed by the Lokpal on January 27.
Supreme Court to Decide If Lokpal Can Probe Sitting High Court Judges
The court also issued an injunction to prevent the complainant from disclosing the name of the judge or contents of the complaint.
The bench said it would lay down law in this regard, as all the judges are appointed under the Constitution only.
The Supreme Court 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.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Centre contended that the high court would not fall within the ambit of the Lokpal Act, 2013. "The high court judge would never fall within the ambit of the Lokpal Act. There are constitutional provisions and some judgments to show this," he said.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, sought to render assistance to the court. He urged the bench to stay the order. Agreeing with the remarks of Tushar Mehta, he said the issue was “fraught with danger.” He emphasised that it was necessary to lay down the law.
In its oral observations, the bench 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 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.”
In the matter, two complaints were filed by the same complainant against a sitting additional judge (name redacted) of a 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 an earlier client of the named high court Judge, while he was practising as an advocate at the Bar.
In its order on January 27, the Lokpal had 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".
