Supreme Court appoints amicus curiae to examine Lokpal’s power to probe HC judges

Satya Prakash

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, March 18

The Supreme Court on Tuesday appointed senior advocate Ranjit Kumar to assist it on issues arising out of the Lokpal’s order, asserting its power to entertain corruption complaints against sitting judges of the high courts.

Kumar will assist the top court from the point of view of the complainant, who filed the complaint against a high court judge before the Lokpal while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, senior advocates Kapil Sibal and BH Marlapalle will assail the Lokpal’s order.

A three-judge Bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant and Justice AS Oka appointed Kumar as amicus curiae, saying it needed an alternative viewpoint for a fair adjudication.

The Bench deferred the hearing to April 15 for arguments in the suo motu proceedings initiated by it over the Lokpal’s January 27 order on entertaining complaints against sitting high court judges.

Three weeks after the Lokpal held that it had power to investigate complaints of corruption against sitting high court judges, the Supreme Court had on February 19 taken suo motu cognisance of the contentious issue.

On February 20, the top court had stayed the Lokpal’s order. Describing the Lokpal’s order as “disturbing”, it had also issued notice to the Centre, the Lokpal Registrar and the complainant.

Appearing in person, the complainant on Tuesday said he has filed his written submissions, largely reiterating its order. Mehta argued that it was clear from the Lokpal Act that the anti-corruption body had no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint against a sitting high court judge.

Justice Gavai clarified that the Bench would go only into the question of jurisdiction and not the merits of the allegations levelled by the complainant.

Mehta had earlier submitted that a high court judge would never fall within the ambit of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.

“We make it amply clear that by this order that 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,” a Lokpal Bench, led by Justice AM Khanwilkar, had said in its January 27 order.

However, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Lokpal had forwarded the complaint against the high court judge to the Chief Justice of India for his guidance.

A high court judge would qualify as a person in a body established by an Act of Parliament within the sweep of Section 14(1)(f) of the Lokpal Act and since the high court in question was created for a newly formed state by an Act of the Parliament, it would come within Section 14(1)(4), the Lokpal had said.

“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,” the Lokpal had said, while deciding on a complaint accusing a high court judge of influencing an additional district judge and another high court judge to favour a private company in a case.

The private company was earlier a client of the high court judge in question when he was an advocate.

Earlier, the Lokpal had ruled that it didn’t have jurisdiction over the Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court Judge as the Supreme Court was not a body established by an Act of Parliament.