The Supreme Court stayed a Lokpal order probing an HC judge accused of favoring a private firm, arguing it bypassed established safeguards protecting judicial independence. Citing Section 77 IPC and the K Veeraswami judgment, the SC maintained that any prosecution must follow constitutional procedures, including CJI consultation and parliamentary impeachment.
Copyright infringement not intended
The Supreme Court stayed a Lokpal order that aimed to investigate a corruption complaint against an unnamed High Court (HC) judge.
Two complaints alleged that an HC judge influenced a lower court judge and another HC judge to favor a private company in lawsuits. The company was reportedly a former client of the judge when he was an advocate.
The Lokpal, led by former Supreme Court (SC) judge A.M. Khanwilkar, ruled it had jurisdiction to hear complaints against HC judges under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. It argued that HC judges, unlike SC judges, were appointed under colonial-era Acts (e.g., High Courts Act, 1861), making them "public servants" under the Lokpal Act.
Section 77 of the IPC (1860): Protects judges from prosecution for acts done in their official capacity. This is repeated in Section 15 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
K Veeraswami Judgment: Established that judges are “public servants” under the Prevention of Corruption Act but require presidential sanction for prosecution, safeguarding them from politically motivated cases.
Lokpal Act, 2013: Defines “public servants” broadly but excludes judges explicitly. The Lokpal argued HC judges fall under “any person” in Section 14(1)(f), but the SC disagreed, stating HC judges are constitutional authorities, not statutory functionaries.
The SC took suo motu notice of the Lokpal’s order, calling it “very, very disturbing” and stayed it immediately.
The SC stressed protecting judges from “frivolous prosecution” and executive overreach, as outlined in K Veeraswami v/s Union of India (1991)case, which mandated that no criminal case against a judge could proceed without the President’s sanction, advised by the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
The Lokpal’s order risked bypassing established procedures for complaints against judges, which require prior CJI consultation and impeachment by Parliament for removal.
Must Read Articles:
Lokpal Order on Power over Judges
Source:
|
PRACTICE QUESTION Q. Suppose the Lokpal, after a preliminary inquiry, finds prima facie evidence of corruption against a senior IAS officer. Which of the following actions can the Lokpal legally recommend under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013?
Select the correct code: A) 1 and 3 only B) 2 and 4 only C) 1, 2, and 4 only D) 2, 3, and 4 only Answer: B Explanation: Action 1 is incorrect: The Lokpal itself cannot initiate prosecution. It can only recommend prosecution to the government. The actual prosecution is carried out by designated agencies like the CBI or other prosecution agencies, not by the Lokpal directly. Action 2 is correct: Recommending disciplinary action to the concerned government department is a primary function of the Lokpal. This could include actions like suspension, removal from service, etc., depending on the severity of the offense. Action 3 is incorrect: The Lokpal does not have the power to order the attachment of properties. While it can recommend actions to recover ill-gotten gains, the power of attachment and confiscation typically lies with other agencies and courts through established legal procedures. Action 4 is correct: The Lokpal can direct the CBI or any other investigation agency under the Central Government to conduct further investigation into the allegations. |
© 2025 iasgyan. All right reserved
