The Supreme Court on Tuesday listed for hearing after April 15, a suo motu case initiated against the January 27 order of the Lokpal, allowing complaints against High Court judges under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
The Special Bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Abhay S Oka appointed Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar to assist the Court from the point of view of the complainant, who filed the complaint against the Judge before the Lokpal.
Appearing in person before the Apex Court, the complainant today contended that he has filed his written submissions.
When the Bench asked the complainant whether he needed the assistance of a lawyer, he prayed that his written arguments be considered.
The Apex Cort, however, decided to appoint Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar as an Amicus Curiae on the grounds that it would also need an alternative viewpoint for a fair adjudication.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, along with Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and BH Marlapalle, are submitting arguments against the Lokpal verdict.
SG Mehta submitted that the issue involved only a question of law and it was clear from the Lokpal Act itself that there was no jurisdiction for the body to entertain the complaint. Only one section of the Lokpal Act needed to be examined, he added.
The Bench then observed that it would go only into the question of jurisdiction and not into the merits of the allegations against the Judge.
The Lokpal also filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court, which the SG described as a ‘reiteration’ of the order.
Earlier on February 20, the Bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Abhay S Oka stayed the Lokpal order allowing complaints against High Court judges under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
Terming the order as something ‘very very disturbing,’ the Apex Court issued notice to the Central government and the Registrar of Lokpal.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, said that High Court judges would never fall within the ambit of the 2013 Act. Each judge was in itself a High Court, he added.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal also offered to assist the Court on the issue. Terming the ruling as exceptionally disturbing, Sibal said it was fraught with danger. He further sought a stay on the order.
The order was passed by the Lokpal’s Full Bench headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar, while dealing with two complaints against a High Court judge alleging him of influencing an Additional District Judge and another High Court judge in a suit.
Without going into the merits of the allegations, it ruled that the Judges of the High Court, established by an Act of Parliament, came within the ambit of Section 14 of the 2013 Act. A High Court judge met the definition of a ‘public servant’. The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 did not exclude judges, it added.
The Lokpal, however, decided to first approach the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for guidance on the issue. It deferred further action on the complaints till four weeks, keeping in mind the statutory time frame to dispose of the complaint in terms of Section 20 (4) of the 2013 Act. The complaints were also forwarded to the CJI.
The Lokpal redacted the name of the judge and the High Court before making its decision public.
On February 20, the top court of the country injuncted the person, who filed complaints against the High Court judge before the Lokpal, from disclosing the judge’s name and the contents of the complaint.