The Supreme Court of India, on 18 March 2025, adjourned the hearing in its suo motu proceedings challenging a Lokpal order that sought to bring sitting High Court judges within the anti-corruption body's jurisdiction. A Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, and Justice Abhay S. Oka indicated that the matter would require consideration by a larger bench and appointed an amicus curiae to assist the Court.
Background
On 27 January 2025, the Lokpal of India, headed by former Supreme Court Judge Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, passed an order interpreting Section 14(1)(f) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 to include High Court judges within its jurisdiction. Section 14(1)(f) extends the Lokpal's purview to "any person who is or has been in charge of any body set up or established by an Act of Parliament." The Lokpal held that High Courts, being established by the Constitution (which is an enactment of the Constituent Assembly acting as a body empowered by the Indian Independence Act, 1947, an Act of Parliament), fell within this provision.
The Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of the order on 20 February 2025 and stayed its operation, with Justice B.R. Gavai describing the interpretation as "very very disturbing." The stay was granted on the ground that the order raised fundamental questions about the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers.
Key Holdings
In the 18 March 2025 hearing, the Court:
Maintained the stay: The Lokpal's order of 27 January 2025 remained stayed pending final determination of the matter.
Larger bench consideration: The Court indicated that the constitutional questions raised warranted examination by a bench of at least seven judges, given that the issue touches upon the structural independence of the higher judiciary.
Amicus curiae appointed: The Court appointed senior counsel as amicus curiae to assist in the proceedings, reflecting the gravity and public importance of the issue.
Next hearing date: The matter was adjourned to 15 April 2025 for further consideration, including the question of constitution of the appropriate bench.
Implications for Practitioners
This case raises a constitutional question of the first order: whether High Court judges can be subjected to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Lokpal, or whether the Constitution provides an exclusive mechanism for addressing judicial misconduct through the impeachment process under Article 124(4) read with Article 217(1)(b).
The Lokpal's interpretation, if upheld, would represent a fundamental shift in the accountability architecture of the Indian judiciary. Currently, the only mechanism for removing a High Court judge is through a parliamentary process requiring a special majority. Bringing judges under the Lokpal's jurisdiction would create a parallel accountability pathway not contemplated by the framers of the Constitution.
Practitioners in constitutional law should closely track this matter, as the eventual decision will have implications beyond the immediate question of Lokpal jurisdiction. It may require the Court to revisit the scope of "body established by an Act of Parliament" under Section 14(1)(f) and clarify the boundaries between statutory accountability mechanisms and constitutional protections for judicial independence. The appointment of an amicus and the indication of a larger bench suggest that the Court intends to settle this question authoritatively.