Supreme Court Stays Lokpal Order on HC Judge

March 1, 2025

The Supreme Court of India has recently intervened in legal matter involving the Lokpal’s authority to investigate corruption complaints against High Court judges. The Supreme Court’s decision to stay a Lokpal order has raised questions about judicial independence and the framework of accountability for judges.

Context of the Case

Recently, the Supreme Court stayed a Lokpal order that addressed a corruption complaint against an unnamed High Court judge. The Lokpal, led by former Supreme Court judge A M Khanwilkar, claimed jurisdiction under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. The Supreme Court, however, found the situation concerning and took immediate action.

Supreme Court’s Rationale

The Supreme Court has historically balanced criticism of judges with the need to protect judicial independence. It aims to prevent executive overreach into the judiciary. By intervening, the Supreme Court sought to ensure that the process for addressing complaints against judges adheres to established legal protocols.

Judicial Protections Under IPC

Section 77 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 protects judges from being charged with offences related to their official duties. This protection is reiterated in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Supreme Court added further safeguards in the K Veeraswami v Union of India case, requiring presidential sanction for criminal investigations against judges.

Complaint Details

The Lokpal was presented with two complaints against a High Court judge. Allegations suggested that the judge had influenced other judges in cases involving a private company that was previously a client. The Lokpal’s order focused solely on its jurisdiction rather than the complaint’s merits.

About the Lokpal’s Jurisdiction

The Lokayukta Act applies to public servants, including those connected to autonomous bodies funded or controlled by the government. The term “public servant” does not explicitly mention judges but does encompass various roles under specific conditions. The Lokpal previously ruled it could not hear cases against Supreme Court judges, but found High Court judges could fall under its jurisdiction.

Implications of the Decision

The Supreme Court’s decision to stay the Lokpal’s order marks the complexities of judicial accountability. It raises critical questions about the balance between transparency and the protection of judicial integrity. The Lokpal’s caution in forwarding the complaint to the Chief Justice of India signifies the need for careful consideration in handling such sensitive matters.

Key Facts on the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013

Main Provisions

Selection Committee: Includes the Prime Minister (Chairperson), Speaker of Lok Sabha, Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, Chief Justice of India (or a nominated judge), and an eminent jurist chosen by the President.
Who Comes Under It?: Covers the Prime Minister, Ministers, Members of Parliament, and all government employees from Group A to D.
Structure: Has a chairperson and up to 8 members. Half must be judges, and 50% must belong to SC/ST/OBC, minorities, or women.
Investigation Powers: Can oversee investigations and direct agencies like the CBI to act on cases referred to it.
Foreign Donations: Covers cases where public officials receive foreign contributions over ₹10 lakh per year under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), 2010.
Lokayuktas in States: States must set up their own Lokayukta (state-level anti-corruption body) within a year of the Act’s implementation.

2016 Amendment

Leader of the Largest Opposition Party: If no official Leader of Opposition exists, the leader of the biggest opposition party in Lok Sabha can be part of the selection committee.
Asset Declaration Rule Changed: Earlier, officials had to declare their assets within 30 days of joining. Now, they follow a government-specified timeline.

Limitations of the Act

No Independence: The government has a strong role in appointing and controlling the Lokpal, affecting its neutrality.
No Anonymous Complaints: People cannot file complaints anonymously, discouraging whistleblowers.
Time Limit: Complaints must be filed within 7 years, which may not be enough for certain cases.
Strict Punishment for False Complaints: This might stop people from reporting genuine corruption cases due to fear of punishment.
Lack of Transparency: The process of investigating complaints against the Prime Minister is unclear.
No Suo Moto Powers: Lokpal cannot start an investigation on its own against a public servant.

« Previous Post Next Post »