Open to ‘fair debate’ on Lokpal jurisdiction over HC judges: Supreme Court

NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Tuesday created space for a “fair debate” on the contentious issue of

anti-corruption watchdog

Lokpal assuming jurisdiction to inquire into allegations of taint against high court judges even though the apex court had formed a prima facie view that this would be “dangerous” for independence of constitutional courts.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta protested strongly against Lokpal assuming jurisdiction over high court judges and told a bench of Justices B R Gavai, Surya Kant and A S Oka that the Jan 27 order of the full bench led by Lokpal A M Khanwilkar, attempting to assume inquiry jurisdiction over HC judges, went against the procedure established through SC judgments for dealing with complaints against con stitutional court judges.
The bench agreed and said the field was already occupied and a mechanism was in place to deal with complaints against SC and HC judges. Mehta said the Supreme Court should examine only Section 14(1)(f) of Lokpal Act, which formed the basis for Lokpal’s Jan 27 order.
Supreme Court Bar Association president and senior advocate Kapil Sibal said the SC, in its 1991 judgment in the Veeraswami case, had made it mandatory to obtain the CJI’s consent before initiation of proceedings against a constitutional court judge. “The law must be clarified to ensure that complaints of this nature (corruption and misuse of office) are forwarded only to the CJI and not to any other authority,” he said.

Lokpal’s order had come on a complaint filed by a person accusing an HC judge of influencing an additional district judge and another HC judge who were hearing suits filed by the complainant against a private company.
However, Sibal said there was a wider issue involved. “What happens if a person goes to a police station and wants to file an FIR (for a criminal act allegedly committed by an HC judge)? The fundamental issue is whether a complaint can be filed against SC and HC judges outside the mechanism provided under the Constitution and the additions made through SC rulings. The court may have to examine this issue in this case,” he said.
The SG said whether a person could go to a police station to lodge an FIR did not fall within the ambit and scope of the issue arising from Lokpal’s Jan 27 order. The procedure for lodging a complaint against a constitutional court judge was provided in the Veeraswami judgment, he said.
The bench agreed and said it would examine the issues relating to Lokpal’s jurisdiction to entertain complaints against HC judges. Justice Kant said the proceedings should not appear one-sided and added that there should be an amicus to present the contrary view for a fair debate on the issue. In its order, Lokpal had clarified that it did not have jurisdiction over SC judges. The bench appointed senior advocate Ranjit Kumar as amicus and posted hearing on the matter to April 15.