SUPREME COURT STAYS LOKPAL ORDER ON HC JUDGE Case Background

GS2 POLITY:

The Supreme Court has halted a Lokpal order concerning a corruption complaint against a High Court judge, highlighting tensions between judicial accountability and independence. The Lokpal, headed by former Supreme Court judge A.M. Khanwilkar, claimed jurisdiction under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, prompting Supreme Court intervention.

Supreme Court’s Rationale

• Ensures judicial independence while addressing corruption allegations.
• Prevents executive overreach into judicial matters.
• Upholds established legal protocols for investigating judges.

Judicial Protections Under IPC

• Section 77 of IPC, 1860 & Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Shields judges from prosecution for actions taken in official capacity.
• K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991): Requires presidential sanction for criminal investigations against judges.

Complaint Against the Judge

• Two complaints alleged the judge influenced court decisions favoring a former client.
• Lokpal’s order focused on its jurisdiction rather than the complaint’s merit.

Lokpal’s Jurisdiction Debate

• Lokpal Act covers public servants, but judges are not explicitly included.
• Lokpal ruled Supreme Court judges are exempt, but High Court judges may be under its purview.

Implications of Supreme Court’s Stay

• Raises questions on judicial transparency vs. integrity protection.
• Lokpal referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India for further review.

Key Facts: Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013

Main Provisions

• Selection Committee: PM (Chairperson), Lok Sabha Speaker, Opposition Leader, CJI (or nominee), and an eminent jurist.
• Coverage: Includes PM, Ministers, MPs, and all government employees (Groups A-D).
• Structure: One Chairperson + up to 8 members, with 50% from SC/ST/OBC, minorities, or women.
• Powers: Can direct investigations via CBI.
• Foreign Donations: Scrutinizes officials receiving over ₹10 lakh under FCRA, 2010.
• Lokayuktas in States: States must establish a state-level anti-corruption body.

2016 Amendment

• Opposition Leader Clause: If no official Leader of Opposition, the largest opposition party leader is included in selection.
• Asset Declaration Rule: Changed from 30-day disclosure to a government-determined timeline.

Limitations of the Act

• Government Control: Lokpal’s independence is weakened by government influence.
• No Anonymous Complaints: Restricts whistleblowing.
• Time Limit: Complaints must be filed within 7 years, potentially limiting cases.
• Strict Punishment for False Complaints: May deter genuine corruption reports.
• Lack of Transparency: Process for investigating PM remains unclear.
• No Suo Moto Powers: Lokpal cannot initiate cases on its own.

Next Steps

With the Supreme Court’s stay in place, further legal scrutiny will determine whether the Lokpal has jurisdiction over High Court judges, impacting future judicial accountability mechanisms.