The Supreme Court on Wednesday decided to hear in July arguments over an order of anti-corruption ombudsman Lokpal to examine complaints against sitting high court judges. Justice B R Gavai, who was heading a special bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Abhay S Oka, said the matter will have to go before another bench.
"It is something for the chief justice to decide," Justice Oka said, "it is a matter of propriety."
"We will have it somewhere in July," Justice Gavai added.
The apex court was dealing with a suo motu proceeding initiated over the Lokpal's January 27 order on two complaints filed against a sitting additional judge of the high court.
The complaints allege the judge 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.
The top court had on February 20 stayed the Lokpal's order, saying it was "something very, very disturbing" and concerned the independence of the judiciary.
It then issued notices and sought responses from the Centre, the Lokpal registrar and the complainant.
While hearing the matter on March 18, the apex court said it would examine the issue over the jurisdiction of Lokpal in entertaining complaints against sitting high court judges.
It asked senior advocate Ranjit Kumar to assist it as an amicus curiae in the matter.
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.
In its order, the Lokpal directed the complaints and relevant materials received in its registry in the two matters to be forwarded to the office of the Chief Justice of India for his 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 time frame to dispose of the complaint in terms of Section 20 (4) of the Act of 2013," said the Lokpal bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar on January 27.
The Lokpal added, "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. In that, we have not looked into or examined the merits of the allegations at all."
The order noted it would be "too naive" to argue that a high court judge would not come within the ambit of expression "any person" in clause (f) of section 14 (1) of the 2013 Act.
"It is something for the chief justice to decide," Justice Oka said, "it is a matter of propriety."
"We will have it somewhere in July," Justice Gavai added.
The apex court was dealing with a suo motu proceeding initiated over the Lokpal's January 27 order on two complaints filed against a sitting additional judge of the high court.
The complaints allege the judge 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.
The top court had on February 20 stayed the Lokpal's order, saying it was "something very, very disturbing" and concerned the independence of the judiciary.
It then issued notices and sought responses from the Centre, the Lokpal registrar and the complainant.
While hearing the matter on March 18, the apex court said it would examine the issue over the jurisdiction of Lokpal in entertaining complaints against sitting high court judges.
It asked senior advocate Ranjit Kumar to assist it as an amicus curiae in the matter.
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.
In its order, the Lokpal directed the complaints and relevant materials received in its registry in the two matters to be forwarded to the office of the Chief Justice of India for his 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 time frame to dispose of the complaint in terms of Section 20 (4) of the Act of 2013," said the Lokpal bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar on January 27.
The Lokpal added, "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. In that, we have not looked into or examined the merits of the allegations at all."
The order noted it would be "too naive" to argue that a high court judge would not come within the ambit of expression "any person" in clause (f) of section 14 (1) of the 2013 Act.
You may also like
Clifton Suspension Bridge bodies: Couple 'dismembered' in attack after 'extreme sex'
Nagaland State Lottery Result: April 30, 2025, 7 PM Live - Watch Streaming Of Winners List Of Dear Super Pearl Wednesday Weekly Draw
Celebrate Mother's Day with Frederique Constant's Elegant New Highlife Ladies Quartz Collection
Rajasthan: Hindu Migrants From Pakistan Get Relief As Centre Eases Long-Term Visas Rules
Bihar: Ex-MLA Anant Singh granted one-day parole to attend family wedding
