‘A HC judge will never fall within ambit of Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act’
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the Lokpal order on entertaining complaints against sitting High Court judges saying it was “something very, very disturbing” and concerned the independence of the judiciary.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai, Surya Kant and Abhay S Oka issued notice and sought responses from the Centre, the Lokpal registrar and the person who filed complaints against a sitting High Court judge.
“Issue notice to the Union of India, Registrar, Lokpal of India and the complainant, returnable on March 18 at 10.30 am,” the bench said.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said a High Court judge would never fall within the ambit of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
Dealing with Lokpal’s order on two specific complaints against the sitting High Court judge, the bench, issued an injunction to prevent the complainant from disclosing the name of the judge and directed him to keep the complaint confidential.
The apex court was dealing with a suo motu case initiated after the Lokpal passed the order on January 27.
The bench directed the registrar concerned to mask the identity of the complainant and serve notice upon him at his residence through the registrar (judicial) of the High Court.
“In the meantime there shall be stay of the order dated January 27, 2025 passed by the Lokpal of India…,” it added.
The top court went on to hold, “We injunct the complainant from disclosing the name of the judge against whom he has filed the complaint. The complainant is further directed to keep the complaint strictly confidential.”
When the bench assembled, Justice Gavai told Mehta, “We propose to issue notice to the Union of India.”
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who also appeared in the matter, offered to assist the bench in dealing with the matter.
“Something very very disturbing,” said Justice Gavai.
It is fraught with danger, Sibal said and sought a stay on the Lokpal’s order.
“I think a law should be laid down,” he added.
The bench noted that Sibal and senior advocate BH Marlapalle had “graciously offered” to assist the court, as the matter was of “great significance” and concerned the independence of the judiciary.
“Once the finding that the Lokpal has a jurisdiction stands stayed, I think they are aware what are the ramifications of this order. If they don’t understand this, then we are here,” said Justice Gavai.
The bench has asked for the written submission to be filed in the meantime.
The Lokpal passed the order on two complaints filed against a sitting additional judge of the High Court.
The complaints allege that he influenced an additional district judge in the state and a judge of the same High Court slated to deal with a suit filed against the complainant by a private company to favour the firm.
The private company, it was alleged, was earlier a client of the High Court judge in question while he was practising as an advocate at the Bar.
In its order, the Lokpal directed the complaints and relevant materials received in its registry in two matters be forwarded to the office of the CJI for his kind consideration.
“Awaiting the guidance of the Chief Justice of India, consideration of these complaints, for the time being, is deferred until four weeks from today, keeping in mind the statutory timeframe to dispose of the complaint in terms of Section 20 (4) of the Act of 2013,” said the Lokpal bench headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar on January 27.
‘No harm in apologising to top court’
New Delhi: A day after the Supreme Court rebuked a lawyer who sought adjournment citing senior advocate Harish Salve’s unavailability in appearing in the matter, the senior counsel informed the top court on Thursday that the request was made on his behalf without his knowledge. A bench of Justices AS Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was informed by a lawyer from Salve’s office that it was very unfair to the court that he was not intimated at all about it.
Justice Oka said there would be no harm if an apology was tendered to the court by the lawyers.
“You may not like judges but there is no harm in apologising to the institution. You may not like an individual judge but even that remorse is not shown by junior members of the bar. That will be harmful to them in the future. The apology has to be to the institution and not to the individual judges. And even that practice has disappeared with the passage of time because perhaps the junior members of the bar are under the impression that judges may come here stay for few years and go away,” he said.
The senior advocate, the lawyer said, was not kept in the loop that such an adjournment was sought.
“We are not on individuals. It is very unfair. This is not the first time,” the bench added.
