Why in the News?

The Supreme Court recently halted a Lokpal order that sought to include High Court judges under its jurisdiction, calling the anti-corruption body’s interpretation “very disturbing.”

Why did the Supreme Court stay the Lokpal order?

• Violation of Judicial Independence (Article 50 & Article 121): The Supreme Court held that bringing High Court judges under Lokpal’s jurisdiction undermines judicial independence, which is a part of the Basic Structure Doctrine.
  • Article 50 mandates the separation of the judiciary from the executive, preventing interference in judicial functioning.
  • Article 121 prohibits Parliament from discussing the conduct of judges except in matters of impeachment, reinforcing judicial autonomy.
• Judges Are Appointed Under the Constitution (Article 124 & Article 217): The Supreme Court rejected Lokpal’s argument that High Courts were created by British laws, emphasizing that all judges are appointed under the Constitution.
  • Article 124 establishes the Supreme Court, while Article 217 governs the appointment of High Court judges, ensuring their independence from executive control.
• Judicial Oversight Is an Internal Process (Article 124(4) & Article 217(1)(b)): The Supreme Court reaffirmed that judicial misconduct should be handled internally, either through the in-house procedure or the impeachment process.
  • Article 124(4) (for Supreme Court judges) and Article 217(1)(b) (for High Court judges) provide for removal only through Parliamentary impeachment, making external investigations by the Lokpal unconstitutional.

Why did the Lokpal order bring High Court judges under its jurisdiction?

• Interpretation of ‘Public Servants’ Under Lokpal Act: The Lokpal classified High Court judges as public servants under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, making them subject to its jurisdiction.
• Reliance on Section 14(1)(f) of the Lokpal Act: This section grants Lokpal jurisdiction over any body or authority established by an Act of Parliament.
  • The Lokpal argued that High Courts were established by British Parliamentary Acts (Indian High Courts Act, 1861 & Government of India Act, 1935), making them fall within this clause.
• Distinction Between High Courts and Supreme Court: The Lokpal reasoned that Article 124 of the Constitution explicitly established the Supreme Court, but Article 214 only recognized High Courts, implying that High Courts were not directly created by the Constitution.
  • Based on this, the Lokpal ruled that Supreme Court judges were outside its jurisdiction, but High Court judges were not.
• Lack of Explicit Exemption for Judges: The 2013 Lokpal Act does not explicitly exclude High Court judges from its jurisdiction, which the Lokpal interpreted as allowing it to investigate them.
• Case-Specific Justification: The complaint involved a High Court judge allegedly influencing judicial decisions for personal benefit. The Lokpal argued that since the judge was serving in a High Court of a State reorganized by an Act of Parliament, it had jurisdiction over the matter.

Way forward: 

• Judicial Accountability Within Constitutional Framework: Strengthen in-house mechanisms for judicial oversight while ensuring compliance with constitutional provisions like Articles 124(4) and 217(1)(b), which mandate impeachment as the sole removal process for judges.
• Clarify Lokpal’s Jurisdiction Through Legislative Review: Amend the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, to explicitly define its jurisdiction, ensuring it does not encroach upon judicial independence while maintaining transparency in the judiciary.

Mains PYQ:

Q Judicial Legislation is antithetical to the doctrine of separation of powers as envisaged in the Indian Constitution. In this context justify the filing of large number of public interest petitions praying for issuing guidelines to executive authorities. (UPSC IAS/2020)

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now