Source: Indian Express 

Introduction 

The recent stay by the Supreme Court on a Lokpal order that took cognizance of a corruption complaint against an unnamed High Court judge has sparked a significant jurisdictional conflict in India's legal landscape. On 27th January, 2025, the Lokpal bench led by former SC judge A.M. Khanwilkar determined it had the authority to hear corruption complaints against former High Court judges under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. However, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of this decision, with Justices B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant, and A.S. Oka describing it as "something very, very disturbing" while staying the order until the next hearing on March 18, 2025.  

What is the Legal Framework for Complaints Against Judges? 

The legal framework for complaints against judges in India consists of multiple layers of protection designed to balance accountability with judicial independence: 

• Section 77 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now Section 15 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) provides that judges cannot be charged with offenses related to the exercise of their official duties. 
• The K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991) landmark decision established an additional safeguard by requiring presidential sanction, after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, for any criminal case against a judge. This mechanism was specifically designed to "protect a Judge from frivolous prosecution and unnecessary harassment." The President is bound by the advice given by the CJI in such matters. 
• This procedure for filing criminal cases against judges differs from the parliamentary impeachment process, representing a distinct legal pathway for addressing judicial misconduct. 

What Is the K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991) Precedent? 

The K. Veeraswami case established a crucial precedent for handling complaints against judges: 

• Justice Veeraswami, a former Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, was under CBI investigation for disproportionate assets. 
• The Supreme Court ruled that while judges are indeed "public servants" who can be investigated under anti-corruption laws, special protections must apply. 
• The court mandated that the President must sanction any criminal case against a judge, but only after consulting the Chief Justice of India. 
• This consultation is binding on the President, meaning the CJI effectively has veto power over corruption investigations against judges. 
• This mechanism was specifically designed to shield judges from frivolous or politically motivated complaints while still allowing legitimate investigations to proceed. 

How Does the Lokpal Define Its Jurisdiction Over Judges? 

The Lokpal's jurisdiction hinges on the definition of "public servant" under Section 14 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013: 

• While judges are not explicitly mentioned in this definition, subsection (f) includes "any person who is or has been a chairperson or member or officer or employee in any...autonomous body...established by an Act of Parliament or wholly or partly financed by the Central Government or controlled by it." 
• The Lokpal has applied this definition inconsistently across different judicial tiers: 
  • In a separate January 2025 ruling, it determined it lacked jurisdiction over Supreme Court judges since the Supreme Court was established under Article 124 of the Constitution rather than by an "Act of Parliament." 
  • However, for High Court judges, the Lokpal distinguished that several High Courts were established and restructured under the High Courts Act, 1861, and the Government of India Act, 1935. 
  • The Lokpal reasoned these would qualify as "Acts of Parliament" since the General Clauses Act, 1897 specifies that Acts of Parliament include those passed "before the commencement of the Constitution." 

What Are the Details of the Case That Triggered This Conflict? 

The case involves specific allegations against an unnamed High Court judge: 

• Two complaints were filed alleging that the judge improperly influenced an Additional District Judge and another High Court judge who were hearing suits filed by a complainant against a private company. 
• According to the allegations, the company was formerly a client of the judge when he practiced as an advocate. 
• The Lokpal's January 27 order did not address the merits of these allegations but focused solely on the jurisdictional question of whether the Lokpal had the authority to hear a case against a High Court judge. 
• The Lokpal concluded that High Court judges fall within its jurisdiction but acknowledged that proceeding with an inquiry would "inevitably involve a probe into the allegations against a Judge of the High Court." 
• Therefore, it deemed it "appropriate" to forward the complaint to the Chief Justice of India for guidance before conducting further inquiries, recognizing the Veeraswami precedent. 

Why Is the Supreme Court Concerned About the Lokpal's Assertion of Jurisdiction? 

The Supreme Court's immediate stay and characterization of the Lokpal's order as "very, very disturbing" reflects several deep concerns: 

• Judicial Independence: The Court has historically balanced acknowledging criticism of judges with protecting judicial independence from executive overreach. 
• Separation of Powers: The Lokpal, as an independent statutory body under the executive branch, represents a potential new avenue for complaints against judges that might circumvent the carefully constructed processes established in the K. Veeraswami case. 
• Protection from Harassment: The Court appears concerned that allowing the Lokpal to exercise jurisdiction over High Court judges could undermine the constitutional safeguards designed to protect judges from harassment while performing their duties. 
• Potential for Political Pressure: This jurisdictional overlap could potentially expose judges to political pressure or retaliatory complaints that might compromise their independence. 

What is the Legal Distinction Between High Courts and the Supreme Court? 

The Lokpal has drawn a significant distinction between Supreme Court and High Court judges: 

• It ruled it cannot hear cases against Supreme Court judges because the Supreme Court was established directly by Article 124 of the Constitution, not by an Act of Parliament. 
• However, it found that High Courts, many of which were established or restructured under the High Courts Act of 1861 and the Government of India Act of 1935, fall within its jurisdiction. 
• The Lokpal relied on the General Clauses Act of 1897, which states that Acts of Parliament include those passed before the Constitution came into effect. 

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court's ruling on the Lokpal order will be pivotal in shaping the balance between judicial accountability and independence in India. By clarifying the Lokpal's jurisdiction over the judiciary and reaffirming procedural safeguards, the decision will set a precedent for future anti-corruption investigations. Ultimately, it will influence the separation of powers and reinforce the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional democracy.