“We will require at least two hours…. We will have it on some Wednesday. If it does not get over on Wednesday afternoon, we will continue on Thursday,” the bench said and posted the hearing on April 30.
The apex court was dealing with a suo motu proceeding initiated over the Lokpal’s January 27 order on two complaints filed against a sitting additional judge of the high court.
The complaints alleged the judge influenced an additional district judge in the state and a judge of the same high court slated to deal with a suit filed against the complainant by a private company to favour the firm.
The private company, it was alleged, was earlier a client of the high court judge in question while he was practising as an advocate.
The top court on February 20 stayed the Lokpal’s order, saying it was “something very, very disturbing” and concerned the independence of the judiciary and issued notices and sought responses from the Centre, the Lokpal registrar and the complainant.
On March 18, the apex court said it would examine the issue over the jurisdiction of Lokpal in entertaining complaints against sitting high court judges.
It had asked senior advocate Ranjit Kumar to assist it as an amicus curiae in the matter.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, previously said a high court judge would never fall within the ambit of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
In its order, the Lokpal directed the complaints and relevant materials received in its registry in the two matters to be forwarded to the office of the Chief Justice of India for his consideration.
“Awaiting the guidance of the Chief Justice of India, consideration of these complaints, for the time being, is deferred until four weeks from today, keeping in mind the statutory time frame to dispose of the complaint in terms of Section 20 (4) of the Act of 2013,” said the Lokpal bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar on January 27.
The Lokpal added, “We make it amply clear that by this order we have decided a singular issue finally — as to whether the judges of the high court established by an Act of Parliament come within the ambit of Section 14 of the Act of 2013, in the affirmative. No more and no less. In that, we have not looked into or examined the merits of the allegations at all.” The order noted it would be “too naive” to argue that a high court judge would not come within the ambit of expression “any person” in Clause (f) of Section 14 (1) of the 2013 Act. PTI ABA AMK
