On Tuesday, March 18, 2025, a bench of the Supreme Court’s most senior judges, led by Justice B.R. Gavai, agreed to investigate in detail whether judges of constitutional courts fall under the purview of the nation’s top ombudsman, the Lokpal, as well as public officials such as the Prime Minister, Union Ministers, Members of Parliament, and Central Government representatives. “We will consider the issue of the jurisdiction of the Lokpal,” Justice Gavai addressed the courtroom.
After Lokpal obtained jurisdiction to look into allegations against High Court judges who were still in office through an order dated January 27, the supreme court was hearing a matter on its own initiative. Like government ministers and officials, High Court judges were categorized by the Ombudsman as public servants covered by the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
On February 20, the Special Bench delayed the Lokpal ruling, calling it “very disturbing” and stating that it would affect the judiciary’s independence. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that the “limited question” was whether judges of constitutional courts were in fact public servants under the Lokpal Act when he appeared before the Special Bench on Tuesday, which also included Justices Surya Kant and A.S. Oka.
In support of the court, senior counsel Kapil Sibal stated that he wished to take things a step further and ask the Bench to consider whether criminal complaints against judges might be filed in police stations. “Can a complaint be ever filed outside the remit of a Constitutional authority. That is the fundamental issue. Can someone go to a police station and register a First Information Report (FIR)?” Mr. Sibal submitted.
But Mr. Mehta objected to extending the ambit of the suo motu case. He said that the Bench should limit its current investigation to determining whether constitutional court justices qualified as public workers under Section 14 of the Lokpal Act. The top law officer argued that the question of whether police could file a formal complaint against a sitting High Court or Supreme Court judge had already been resolved by the Constitution Bench of the highest court in a majority ruling in the 1991 K. Veeraswami case.
Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts were classified as “public servants” under the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1947 in the 1991 ruling. However, the Constitution Bench had ruled that criminal cases against judges of constitutional courts could only be filed after consulting the Chief Justice of India. If the CJI permitted the filing of such a FIR, the government should once more confer with him before approving prosecution.
The argument put forth was that, because the CJI was a “participatory functionary” in the appointment of judges, his consent was essential. It was believed that prior consultation with the CJI was essential to safeguarding the judiciary’s independence, which is a fundamental aspect of the Constitution. Though the Veeraswami case had explicitly dealt with the Prevention of Corruption Act in judiciary, the majority judgment had extended its ambit to “any criminal case”.
Judges of constitutional courts can also be dismissed via a parliamentary process on the grounds of “proved misbehaviour or incapacity”. The process of investigating a judge and presenting a request for his removal to the President by the Parliament is governed by the Judges (Inquiry Act), 1968. A special majority of the House’s total membership and at least two-thirds of the members who are present and voting must support the motion to remove a judge from the constitutional court.
The Supreme Court has also developed an internal process for investigating grave accusations made against judges. By taking competence to investigate High Court judges directly, the Lokpal has now successfully circumvented these drawn-out constitutional and procedural procedures. The argument that a High Court judge was outside the ombudsman’s jurisdiction was deemed “too naive” by the Lokpal in its ruling dated January 27. According to its findings, a High Court judge was clearly covered by clause (f) of Section 14(1) of the 2013 Act.
Clause (f) of Section 14 notes the Lokpal has jurisdiction over “any person who is or has been a chairperson or member or officer or employee in any body or Board or corporation or authority or company or society or trust or autonomous body (by whatever name called) established by an Act of Parliament or wholly or partly financed by the Central government or controlled by it”.
According to the Lokpal, a High Court judge is included in the definition of “any person” in the provision. The Lokpal had reasoned that the judges of the court established by an Act of Parliament were not specifically exempt from the 2013 Act.
The ombudsman said that it based its decision on a complaint it had received against a judge who was a member of a High Court in a state that had been reorganized by a parliamentary act. When the Lokpal order and the complaint were sent to the Chief Justice of India for his consideration prior to initiating a preliminary investigation, the Supreme Court became aware of it.
