Polity & GovernancePriority2025-03-18

SC Examines Lokpal Jurisdiction Over Judges

Why focus: GS2 Polity. Tests Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013 exemptions and judicial independence principles in Assertion-Reason format.

In News

What Happened

In early 2025, the Lokpal issued a controversial order claiming it has jurisdiction to investigate corruption complaints against sitting High Court judges, classifying them as 'public servants' under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance and immediately stayed the order, terming it 'very disturbing'. A special Supreme Court bench was formed to definitively resolve whether a statutory ombudsman can probe constitutional courts.

Why It Matters

This conflict strikes at the heart of the Constitution's separation of powers. If an external statutory body like the Lokpal can investigate the higher judiciary, it could expose judges to executive or political pressure, severely undermining judicial independence and the established constitutional mechanisms for holding judges accountable.

Background

History & Context

The debate over investigating judges for corruption spans decades. In the landmark K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991) judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that no criminal case can be registered against a sitting Supreme Court or High Court judge without the prior consent of the Chief Justice of India (CJI). To balance accountability and independence, the judiciary adopted an 'In-House Mechanism' in 1999 to internally investigate complaints against judges. During the drafting of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, Parliament deliberately avoided explicitly placing the higher judiciary under the Lokpal's purview, leaving their accountability to the constitutional process of impeachment and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. However, on January 27, 2025, a Lokpal bench headed by former SC judge Justice A.M. Khanwilkar interpreted Section 14(1)(f) of the 2013 Act to include High Court judges, triggering a constitutional standoff.

What Changed

▶
BEFORE: High Court judges were universally understood to be outside the Lokpal's jurisdiction, governed solely by the In-House Mechanism, the Veeraswami guidelines, and the Judges (Inquiry) Act. NOW: The Lokpal asserted jurisdiction over them under Section 14(1)(f) of the Lokpal Act.
▶
BEFORE: The Lokpal Act was interpreted to exclude all constitutional courts. NOW: The Lokpal created a bifurcation—exempting Supreme Court judges (established directly by Article 124 of the Constitution) but including High Court judges (arguing they are covered as bodies established by pre-constitutional or reorganizational 'Acts of Parliament').
▶
BEFORE: Complaints against High Court judges were sent to the CJI or the respective High Court Chief Justice. NOW: The Lokpal officially entertained a complaint against a sitting judge and forwarded it to the CJI for guidance, effectively asserting its right to act as the receiving authority for such complaints.
▶
BEFORE: The definition of 'public servant' under the Lokpal Act was not actively applied to the higher judiciary. NOW: The Lokpal designated High Court judges as public servants under the 2013 Act, an interpretation currently stayed by the Supreme Court.

What Did NOT Change

The absolute protection granted to judges for their official judicial acts remains intact under Section 15 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 77 of the IPC). Furthermore, the ultimate constitutional mechanism for the removal of judges (impeachment by Parliament under Articles 124(4) and 217) was not altered by the Lokpal's order.

Prelims Angle

NCERT Connection

Class 11 Political Science (Indian Constitution at Work) - Chapter 6: Judiciary. The chapter extensively covers 'Independence of Judiciary' and how the Constitution protects judges from executive and legislative interference, particularly regarding their removal. This event acts as a real-world test of these concepts: deciding whether a statutory body (Lokpal) can bypass constitutional safeguards and subject judges to external investigations.

Common Misconceptions

✗ The Lokpal Act 2013 explicitly covers all constitutional functionaries, including Supreme Court and High Court judges.

✓ Section 14 of the Lokpal Act explicitly covers the PM, Ministers, MPs, and Groups A, B, C, D officers, but deliberately omits explicitly mentioning constitutional court judges.

People assume 'Lokpal' is a blanket anti-corruption ombudsman for anyone drawing a government salary, missing the nuanced separation of powers that protects the higher judiciary.

✗ High Courts have a lower constitutional status than the Supreme Court, making them subject to statutory laws like the Lokpal Act.

✓ High Courts are constitutional bodies under Article 214, and their judges are appointed by the President under Article 217. The Supreme Court emphasized that all higher judiciary judges are constitutional appointees, granting them equal immunity from the Lokpal.

The Lokpal's January 2025 reasoning argued that many High Courts were established by British-era Acts (like the Indian High Courts Act 1861) or State Reorganization Acts, falsely reducing them to statutory bodies in the public eye.

✗ The Lokpal ordered a direct police investigation into the High Court judge.

✓ The Lokpal only asserted its jurisdiction but adhered to the Veeraswami precedent by forwarding the complaint to the CJI for consultation before actually launching an inquiry.

Headlines often state 'Lokpal assumes jurisdiction over judges', which sounds like immediate police action, missing the procedural caveat that the Lokpal still deferred to the CJI.

Practice Questions

Q1

How Many Correct

Consider the following statements regarding the jurisdiction and accountability of the higher judiciary in India: 1. The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 explicitly mentions High Court judges within the definition of 'public servants' liable for investigation. 2. According to the Supreme Court's judgment in the K. Veeraswami case, no criminal case can be registered against a sitting Supreme Court or High Court judge without the prior sanction of the President of India. 3. A judge of a Constitutional Court in India enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution for acts done in the discharge of their official judicial duties. How many of the above statements are correct?

Q2

Match the Following

Match the following legal mechanisms/provisions with their core subject matter regarding the judiciary: List I (Provision/Mechanism) A. Article 217 of the Constitution B. Section 15 of BNS, 2023 C. Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 D. In-House Mechanism (1999) List II (Subject Matter) 1. Regulates the procedure for the investigation and proof of misbehavior or incapacity of a judge. 2. Grants immunity from criminal prosecution for acts done when acting judicially. 3. Internal peer-review system for assessing complaints of misconduct against judges. 4. Provides for the appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of a High Court.

Q3

Assertion & Reason

Assertion (A): The Lokpal recently held that it lacks jurisdiction over Supreme Court judges but asserted jurisdiction over High Court judges under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. Reason (R): Supreme Court judges are appointed by the President under Article 124, whereas High Court judges are appointed by the State Governors under laws enacted by the Parliament. Select the correct answer:

Up next