CJI and Supreme Court Judges not under Lokpal jurisdiction: Lokpal

The Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge does not come under the jurisdiction of the Lokpal if the Lokpal refuses to hear the complaint.

The Lokpal ruled that a Supreme Court judge does not come under its jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.

Under Section 14, the Lokpal has jurisdiction over a person who is or has been the Prime Minister, Union Minister, Member of Parliament, Group ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ or ‘D’ officers serving the Union etc. .

The petitioner argued that the CJI falls under clause (f) of Section 14 which reads as “any person who is or has been the chairman, member, officer or employee of any body, board, corporation, authority, company or society or trust or autonomous body (by whatever name it may be called) established by an Act of Parliament or wholly or partly financed by or controlled by the Central Government”.

The Lokpal rejected this argument, saying that the Supreme Court is not an “authority” created by an Act of Parliament or funded or controlled by the central government.

“Suffice it to note that the Supreme Court of India, though composed of Judges, does not fall within the expression ‘authority’ used in Section 14(1)(f) of the 2013 Act, as it is not Further, the Supreme Court of India is not funded in whole or in part by the Central Government and is not controlled by it as such The expenses of the Supreme Court of India are vested in the Consolidated Fund of India and are not dependent on funding by or controlled by the Central Government in any way, including its administrative functions of the Judges of the Supreme Court or the Chief Justice of India, namely as not wholly or partly funded by or controlled by the Central Government as such,” observed Lokpal.

“On this view it must follow that a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court of India or the Chief Justice would not be subject to the limited jurisdiction of the Lokpal of India,” – reported in the anti-corruption body, considering the complaint.

The Lokpal, headed by former Supreme Court judge A. M. Khanvilkar, clarified that his point of view concerns only Supreme Court judges. It also held that judges are “public servants” within the meaning of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, as held by the Supreme Court in K. Weeraswamy v. Union of India and Others. as reported in (1991) 3 SCC 655. However, all “public servants” under the Prevention of Corruption Act are outside the jurisdiction of the Lokpal.

Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed without any reasoning on the merits.

Click here to read the order