Supreme Court initiates suo motu, stays Lokpal’s decision that it can exercise jurisdiction over the High Court judges

Today (February 20, 2025), the Supreme Court (SC) of India was hearing a suo motu case initiated against a Lokpal decision stating that it can exercise jurisdiction over the High Court (HC) judges under the Lokpal and Lakayuktas Act, 2013. The three-judge bench of the SC constituting Justice BR Gavai, Justice Abhay S Oka, and Justice Surya Kant issued notice to the Union Government for the same stating Lokpal’s reasoning was ‘something very disturbing’. During the proceedings, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta submitted that the interpretation of Lokpal was wrong. He added that a High Court Judge was never intended to be brought under the Lokpal. 

On January 27, while dealing with 2 complaints against a HC judge accusing him of influencing an Additional District Judge and another HC judge in the suit, 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.” After hearing this, the top court initiated a suo motu case (IN RE: ORDER DATED 27/01/2025 PASSED BY LOKPAL OF INDIA AND ANCILLIARY ISSUES). 

The Lokpal’s order also read, “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…It will be too naive to argue that a judge of a High Court will not come within the ambit of expression ‘any person’ in clause (f) of Section 14(1) of the Act of 2013.” It further reads, “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.”

The Lokpal, in its order, also addressed a view exposited by Justice Shetty in the K. Veeraswamy vs. Union of India case, “it is plainly expounded that a Judge of the superior court cannot therefore be excluded from the definition of public servant and would separately fall within the purview of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947.” It added, “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.”