A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday referred to Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna the suo motu proceedings initiated against a Lokpal order that entertained a complaint against a sitting High Court judge.

The matter had been previously listed before Justices BR Gavai, Surya Kant, and Abhay S Oka.

Citing the principle of judicial propriety, the bench noted that the Lokpal itself had sought the guidance of the Chief Justice of India in its order. Justice Oka emphasized that, in light of this, it would be appropriate for a bench headed by the CJI to adjudicate the issue.

The relevant portion of the Lokpal’s January 27 order stated:
“Awaiting the guidance of the Hon’ble 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 time frame to dispose of the complaint in terms of Section 20(4) of the Act of 2013.”

To recap, the Supreme Court had issued notice to the Union Government, the Registrar General of the Lokpal, and the original complainant on February 20. It also stayed the Lokpal’s order. During the hearing, Justice Gavai remarked that the Lokpal's reasoning appeared “very disturbing.” Both Justices Gavai and Oka underscored that High Court judges are Constitutional authorities, not mere statutory functionaries as interpreted by the Lokpal.

The case stems from a complaint alleging that a sitting High Court judge influenced an Additional District Judge and another High Court judge to favor a private company in a civil suit. The Lokpal, chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice AM Khanwilkar, held that the judge falls within the ambit of Section 14(1)(f) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. The reasoning was that the concerned High Court had been established by an Act of Parliament for a newly formed State, thereby meeting the statutory definition.

The Lokpal observed:
“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.”

While refraining from delving into the merits of the allegations, the Lokpal forwarded the complaint to the Chief Justice of India, stating:
“We make it amply clear that by this order 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.”

Earlier, the Lokpal had clarified that it does not have jurisdiction over the Chief Justice of India or Supreme Court judges, as the Supreme Court is not a body established by an Act of Parliament.

At the March 18 hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and B.H. Marlapalle presented arguments challenging the Lokpal's jurisdiction. To ensure a balanced consideration, the Court appointed Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar as amicus curiae. Justice Gavai reiterated that the Court’s inquiry would be limited to the question of the Lokpal's jurisdiction and would not touch upon the merits of the allegations against the judge.

Case Title: In Re: Order dated 27/01/2025 passed by Lokpal of India and Ancillary Issues, SMW(C) No. 2/2025.