New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled the Lokpal on 27 January, stating that the High Court Judge is under investigation under the Lokpal and the Lokayuktus Act, 2013.
In his judgment, the Lokpal had admitted that he could entertain complaints against the High Court judges as per the conditions of the anti -corruption law.
A special SC bench called to hear a Suu Motu case generated by the Lokpal’s decision noted that the matter was very important about the independence of the judiciary. Justice Bra Gawai, Judicial Surya Kant and Justice Abhay S. Going to the bench of three-judges including Oak, “something very upset,” something very disturbing.
Show full article
In the bench’s opinion, HC judges cannot be considered as a statutory authority, but constitutional officers as their appointments are by the government according to the constitution. “Judges are appointed as per the provisions of the Constitution. They are part of a constitutional body, ”the bench said, expressing rejection of the findings of the Lokpal. The bench also issued a notice to the complainant along with the Lokpal Registrar, while both stopped the complaint or the contents of the HC judge’s name.
A Lokpal bench led by former Supreme Court Judge Justice M. Khanwilkar ruled the High Court judges falling under the purview of the 2013 law. It was dealing with complaints against an HC judge, who was accused of affecting an additional District Judge and another HC judge in a suit. The order did not work in the name of the judge or in the High Court, where he is serving.
Since the Lokpal proceeded to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), further action was postponed for time. “Waiting for the guidance of Honorable Chief Justice of India, considering these complaints, for time, has been postponed for four weeks from today, taking into account the statutory time limit for disposal of complaint in the context of Section 20 Hua (4) for the 2013 Act, “Lokpal said in the order of 27 January.
“We clearly clarify that by this order we have finally decided a unique issue – such as the judges of the High Court established by an Act of Parliament come under the purview of Section 14 of the Act of 2013, in positive. No more and no less. In that, we have not seen or investigated the qualities of the allegations at all, ”said this.
It was against this background that Chief Justice of India Sanjeev Khanna formed a back to look into the case. During the hearing on Thursday morning, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued against the order and said that HC judges could never come under the purview of the 2013 law. “Every judge is HC,” the law officer told the bench.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal offered to assist the bench in the case. Sibal, who is also the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), called the Lokpal decision “exceptionally upset”.
“It is full of danger,” he presented.
Did Lokpal order say
The order of the Lokpal states that he recently ruled that the judges of the Supreme Court are not responsible for its jurisdiction as the apex court is a body or assistant authority established in the context of Section 124 of the Constitution of India and of Parliament Not under an act. However, the High Courts, it was protested, was established under the laws enacted by Parliament.
Therefore, the High Courts, as a body, made the details of an institution given in Section 14 (1) (F) of the 2013 Act eligible. According to this, HCS was covered under two eight judicial institutions which are mentioned under the section.
Section 14 empowers the Lokpal to investigate allegations of corruption against eight institutions. He is a Prime Minister, a Union Minister, an MP, a Group A or Group B Public Servant, a Group C or D Government Officer, any person who is the chairman or member or officer in any body, is board, board, board . , Corporation, Authority, Company, Trust or Society that is established by a law or is completely or partially funded by the Center.
Apart from this, there is any person within the ambit who is the director, manager, secretary or other officer of every other society, a trust or an association that is completely or partially funded by the government and any person, who is a director or The Trust in the attainment of any donation from any foreign source under the Association (Regulation) Act, 2010 of the manager, secretary or other officers or individuals of every other society.
In his judgment, the Lokpal held an HC judge, will fall under the purview of expression “Any person who has been a chairman or member or officer in any board, body, corporation, authority, company, trust or society .
“Expressions” Judge “is always understood not only as every person who is officially nominated as a judge, but also to every person. For intelligence, for intelligence, it is a stream of Indian Penal Code (IPC) In 19, it will be useful for the definition of a judge, as well as re -implemented Section 21 for the enactment of the opposing corruption laws (amendment) Act, 1964 and the section 21 with the third category. Public servant, including sub-section (IV) of Khand (C) of 2-Any judge means that any judge means defying expression.
Hearing the Veerwamy case of Justice in 1991, a five-judge Supreme Court bench announced that a judge of the apex court or HC is a public servant under the prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988. However, the ruling has banned any police investigation without prior approval from CJI.
Referring to this, the Lokpal said, “Applying the underlying principle and argument, as given in the report reported, in Section 14 (1) (F) of the 2013 Act,” any person “is high in high A judge should also be included by the Act of Parliament.,
However, it also felt that a complaint before the Lokpal could not be strictly equal with a criminal case.
(Edited by Sudha V)
Also read: Why SC Collegium rejected the ‘CPI (M) sympathetic’ counter of the Kerala HC Judge.