Friends, this matter is related to the dignity and constitutional rights of the judiciary. Recently, the Supreme Court stayed the order of the Lokpal, which claimed the right to hear complaints against the sitting judges of the High Court. This matter is not only going to clarify the scope of the law but also raises important questions about the impartiality and jurisdiction of the judicial system.

The Supreme Court expressed serious concern

The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the entire matter, calling it “something very worrying” and issued notice to the Central Government, Lokpal and the complainant. A bench of Justice B. R. Gavai, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Abhay S. Oka heard the matter and said that this order could go against the constitutional rights of the judiciary. The court also directed during this time that the identity of the complainant be kept confidential and a notice be sent to him through the Registrar Judicial of the concerned High Court. Apart from this, the complainant was also directed not to make public the name of that High Court judge or any information about the complaint.

Question on Lokpal’s order

This decision of the Lokpal was taken under the chairmanship of former Supreme Court judge, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar. In its order, the Lokpal had said that under Section 14(1)(f) of the Lokpal Act, 2013, High Court judges also fall under the definition of “any person” and hence the Lokpal has the right to hear complaints against them. However, the Supreme Court considered this interpretation wrong and said that High Court judges are constitutional officers, not just government officials under any Act.

The central government cited the law

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also objected to the Lokpal’s order. He told the court that the Lokpal Act does not apply to High Court judges because the Constitution has separate provisions for the appointment, monitoring and action against judges. He also said that some old judicial decisions confirm that the Lokpal should not interfere in this jurisdiction. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal also agreed with the concerns of the Supreme Court and said that this order could be dangerous for the independence of the judiciary and it can also raise questions on the impartiality of the judges.

Big question on the independence of the judiciary

This matter is not only a legal issue, but it is also a question of the independence and dignity of the judiciary. The Constitution of India keeps the judiciary independent of the government and other institutions so that it can do justice impartially. If the Lokpal is given the right to hear complaints against High Court judges, then it can affect the autonomy of the judiciary.

The Supreme Court has currently stayed this order and in the next hearing of this case, it will be decided whether the Lokpal has the right to interfere in such cases or not. It is clear from this case that the judiciary of India is vigilant about the protection of its constitutional rights. This is not just a legal battle, but also a fight to maintain constitutional values ​​and judicial independence. The Supreme Court’s decision will go on to set a precedent in this matter and clarify the jurisdiction of the judiciary.

Disclaimer: This article is written for informational purposes only. The information given in it is based on various news sources and statements of legal experts. Readers are advised to seek expert advice before arriving at any legal conclusion.