New Delhi: In a significant ruling, the Lokpal has held that judges of high courts and subordinate courts fall under their jurisdiction, but judges of the Supreme Court are exempt as they aren’t “public servants”. This decision was made while dismissing a complaint filed against former Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud.
The complaint, which spanned 382 pages, alleged “corruption and malicious exercise of power” by the former CJI “to favour a certain politician and political party”. However, the Lokpal dismissed the plea, citing lack of jurisdiction over Supreme Court judges. The plea was filed on October 18.
According to the Lokpal’s ruling on January 3, the CJI or judges of Supreme Court will not come under the definition of a ‘public servant’ as the Supreme Court was not established under any Act of Parliament but under Article 124 of Constitution of India.
Further, the Lokpal coram chaired by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar held that the Supreme Court is neither wholly nor partly financed by the Union government nor controlled by it. The expenditure of the Supreme Court has a charge on the consolidated fund of India and is not dependent on being financed by the Union government.
The Lokpal stated:
“The Supreme Court of India even though, a body of judges, does not come within the ambit of expression “body” employed in Section 14(1)(f) of the Act of 2013, as it is not established by an “Act of Parliament” as such. Further, the Supreme Court of India is neither wholly or partly financed by the Central Government or controlled by it as such. In as much as, the expenditure of the Supreme Court of India has a charge on the Consolidated Fund of India and is not dependent on being financed by the Central Government nor Controlled by it in any manner, including in respect of its administrative functions. The same logic must apply to the Judges of the Supreme Court or Chief Justice of India, namely, as not being wholly or partly financed by the Central Government or controlled by it as such.”
However, the Lokpal distinguished this ruling from judges of other courts, including high courts, which are established under an Act of Parliament.
The Lokpal clarified:
“We need to clarify that the view propounded hitherto is only to consider the status of the judges and chief justice of the Supreme Court of India, having been established by virtue of Article 124 of the constitution of India. This view may not squarely apply to the judges of the other courts, including high courts established under the Act.”
Advertisement
While dismissing the complaint as “barred by jurisdiction,” the Lokpal observed, “We, however, make it clear that the complainant is free to pursue such other remedies, as may be permissible in law. We may not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations, one way or the other, including about the maintainability of the legal remedies to be resorted to by the complainant.”
