Supreme Court stays order of Lokpal of India to bring High Court's judges within ambit of Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act

In the matter of IN RE : ORDER DATED 27/01/2025 PASSED BY LOKPAL OF INDIA AND ANCILLIARY ISSUES, a 3-judge bench of Supreme Court issued notice to the Union of India, Registrar, Lokpal of India and the complainant, returnable on March 18, 2025 at 10.30 a.m. The Registrar, Lokpal has been directed to mask the identity of the complainant and serve notice upon the complainant through the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court, where the complainant resides. The Court's order reads: "In the meantime there shall be stay of the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the Lokpal of India in Complaint No.05/2025. We injunct the complainant from disclosing the name of the Hon'ble Judge against whom he has filed the complaint. The complainant is further directed to keep the complaint strictly confidential. Shri Kapil Sibal and Shri B.H. Marlapalle, learned senior counsel, have graciously offered to assist the Court, since the matter is of a great significance concerning the independence of the judiciary....Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India, waives notice for the Union of India. Written submission, if any, may be filed in the meantime."

The Lokpal of India had passed an order on January 27, 2025 after examining two complaints filed by the same complainant against a sitting Additional Judge of a High Court. The complainant alleged that the named judge had influenced the concerned Additional District Judge of a particular State and a Judge of the same High Court who had to deal with the suit filed against the complainant by a private company, to favour that company. It is alleged that the private company was earlier client of the named High Court Judge, while he was practicing as an advocate at the Bar. 

The order of the Lokpal reads:"Recently, we had an occasion to examine a complaint against the previous Chief Justice of India. After examining the relevant provisions of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act. 2013 (for short, the Act of 2013), it was concluded vide order dated 03.01.2025 in Complaint No 255/2024 that the judges of the Supreme Court including the Chief Justice of India even though public servants in terms of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, Act of 1988), are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Lokpal. Because, they do not come within the sweep of the expression public servant predicated in Section 2(1)(o) read with Section 14 of the Act of 2013. In that, the Supreme Court is a body or adjudicatory authority established in terms of Article 124 of the Constitution of India; and not under an Act of Parliament as such. It was clarified in that decision that the issue of applicability of the stated principle to other courts established by an Act of Parliament was not being discussed."

It observed: "unlike the Supreme Court of India, the High Courts for the concerned State during the pre-constitution period or so to say British India, had been established under the Indian High Courts Act, 1861 enacted by the British Parliament. This Act authorised creation of High Courts in British India, especially in Calcutta, Madras and Bombay through Letters Patent issued by the British Monarch. The Government of India Act. 1935, also passed by the British Parliament, restructured the High Courts which were already functioning in British India regime; and recognized that the High Courts were established by virtue of various Letters Patents and Regulating Act issued by the British Monarch. Pertinently, the Constitution of India. vide Article 214, intrinsically recognises the existence of all the High Courts established under the Act of 1861, the Act of 1935 and the Letters Patents issued by the British Monarch; and restates that there shall be a High Court for each State. In contrast. Article 124 is for "Establishment" and Constitution of the Supreme Court of India, as it was not in existence hitherto. After the Constitution of India came into being, the High Courts established during the British India period, under the Act of 1861 or the Act of 1935 and Letters Patent issued by the British Monarch, continued to function as the High Court of the concerned State enlisted in the First Schedule of the Constitution. Notably, the Act of the Dominion Legislature has been regarded as a Central Act. means an Act of Parliament in terms of Section 3 (7) of the General Clauses Act. 1897. 5. In due course of time, however, the States so formed and specified in the First Schedule of the Constitution. had to be reorganized. Because of reorganization of the States... "

Taking note of the legislative history, the Lokpal of India inferred that the High Court of being an "authority" empowered by law to discharge adjudicatory functions, has been established by an Act of Parliament as a "body" of Judges for that State. Thus. the High Court would qualify the description of at least two juristic entities 'by whatever name called''. out of the eight mentioned in Section 14(1)(f) of the Act of 2013 established by an Act of Parliament. which are mutually exclusive descriptions owing to use of expression "or" in that provision. It will be too naive to argue that a Judge of a High Court will not come within the ambit of expression "any person" in clause (f) of Section 14(1) of the Act of 2013. The expression "Judge" has always been understood as not only every person who is officially designated as a Judge, but also every person. The definition of Judge in Section 19 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as also the enactment of Anti-Corruption Laws (Amendment) Act. 1964 (Act 40 of 1964) and re-enacted Section 21 with the third category of public servant, including sub-clause (iv) of clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act of 1988 — defining expression public servant to mean any Judge. 

The Lokpal of India drew on what is stated on paragraph 35 of the majority view exposited by Justice Shetty in the case of K.Veeraswamy vs. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655. it is plainly expounded that a Judge of the superior court cannot therefore be excluded from the definition of public servant and would squarely fall within the purview of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1947 (analogous to Act of 1988). Applying the underlying principle and the logic as given in this reported decision, the expression 'any person in Section 14(1)(f) of the Act of 2013 must include a Judge of the High Court established by an Act of Parliament as well. 

It observed that a fortiori, the judges of the High Court would come within the sweep of Section 14 of the Act of 2013 read with Section 2(1)(o) thereof. "We say so also because. the definition of public servant in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act of 2013 explicitly excepts only one category of officials or public servants from the jurisdiction of the Lokpal from amongst the species mentioned in Section 14 of the Act of 2013, in respect of whom the jurisdiction is exercisable by any Court or other authority under the Army Act, 1950, the Airforce Act, 1950, the Navy Act, 1957 and the Coast Guard Act,1978. Concededly; the Act of 2013 does not provide for such explicit exception for the judges of the Court established by an Act of Parliament, including Judges of the Constitutional and other Courts established by an Act of Parliament — who must come within the expanse sweep of sub-clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the stated Act." 

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India in K. Veeraswamy case through its majority opinion ordains that to adequately protect a judge from frivolous prosecution and unnecessary harassment the President of India will consult the Chief Justice of India, who will consider all the material placed before him, tender his advice for giving sanction to launch prosecution or for filing FIR against the judge concerned after being satisfied in the matter, as opined by Justice B.C. Ray in paragraph 12 of the reported decision, while agreeing with the opinion of Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty for himself and Justice M.N.Venkatachaliah (as His Lordship then was). The two Judges, in paragraph 60 of the same reported Judgement, had observed as follows: 

"We therefore, direct that no criminal case shall be registered under Section 154 CrPC against a judge of the High Court, Chief Justice of a High Court or the judge of the Supreme Court unless the Chief Justice of India is consulted in the matter."

The thrust of the exposition of the majority view, is that no criminal case shall be "registered" against a judge of the High Court, Chief Justice of High Court or judge of the Supreme Court, unless the Chief Justice of India is consulted in the matter. 

The Lokpal's order reads: "We are conscious of the fact that a complaint before the Lokpal cannot be stricto sensu equated with a criminal case being registered under Section 154 of CrPC or the corresponding provision in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (for short. BNSS). However, considering the scheme of Section 20 of the Act of 2013 on receipt of a complaint and before the Lokpal decides to proceed further by ordering a preliminary inquiry by its inquiry wing or any nominated agency or investigation, it is required to examine whether there exists a prima facie case to proceed further. Such process inevitably involves a probe into the allegations against a Judge of the High Court. For effectuating preliminary inquiry, assistance of specified agency has to be taken who in turn is bestowed with an authority under Section 20 read with Section 27 of the Act of 2013, to obtain comments of the public servant and of the Competent Authority including do questioning of third persons and of official records of the courts, if the allegation against the public servant is concerning any judicial process. Further, this inquiry is and would be a prelude to issue of direction to the investigating agency to register a criminal case against the named public servant and to investigate the same under supervision of Lokpal. Having regard to the consequences emanating from the directions to be issued by the Lokpal under Section 20 of the Act coupled with the dictum in K. Veeraswami's case adverted hitherto, the appropriate course, Ex abundanti cautela, is to abide by the direction given by the majority view of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court and to approach the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India as a pre-condition or quintessence to the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act of 2013."

It was conscious of the fact that "the allegation in this complaint also involves the named Additional District Judge. who is working in a court or body of judges which may have been established by an Act of the State Legislature.  He may be a public servant within the meaning of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but not directly amenable to the jurisdiction of the Lokpal-as not being public servant within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) read with Section 14 of the Act of 2013. However, eventually if an inquiry is to be ordered against the judge of the High Court. and in that inquiry any incriminatory material emerges against the named Additional District Judge. he can be prosecuted in this very action as being involved in an act of abetting. bribe giving or bribe taking or conspiracy of any allegation of corruption under the 1988 Act, by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act of 2013.  A priori. we deem it appropriate to forward the subject complaints and relevant materials received in the Registry in these two matters. to the office of the Hon.ble Chief Justice of India for his kind consideration. Awaiting the guidance of the Hon'ble 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."

The order concludes: "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 Registry is directed to issue/upload copy of this order by redacting the name of the High Court and of the State including revelation of any description suggestive of giving identity of the person involved, where-ever it occurs in this order, to maintain confidentiality as mandated by the Act of 2013 and the Rules framed thereunder. 

The order was passed Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Chairperson, Lokpal and Members of Lokpal Justices L Narayana Swamy, Sanjay Yadav, Ritu Raj Awasthi and Sushil Chandra, Pankaj Kumar and Ajay Tirkey. 

Supreme Court Collegium unanimously recommends appointement of Justice K. Vinod Chandran as a judge of the Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court Collegium in its meeting held on January 7, 2025 unanimously recommended that Justice K. Vinod Chandran be appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court of India. Justice Chandran was due to retire as Chief Justice of Patna High Court on April 24, 2025. He is the 16th person from Kerala to become a Supreme Court judge. After the retirement of Justice C.T. Ravikumar on January 5, 2025, there is no judge from Kerala at the Supreme Court.

Justice K. Vinod Chandran was appointed as a Judge of the Kerala High Court on  November 8, 2011 and was elevated as the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court on March 29, 2023 and has been functioning as the Chief Justice of that High Court since then. He has served as a Judge of the High Court for more than 11 years and as a Chief Justice of a big High Court for more than a year. 

During his long tenure as a Judge and Chief Justice of the High Court, Justice Chandran has acquired significant experience in diverse fields of law. Mr. Justice Chandran stands at 13 in the combined all-India seniority of High Court Judges. In the seniority of Judges hailing from the High Court of Kerala, Justice K. Vinod Chandran stands at 1. 

While recommending his name, the Collegium has taken into consideration the fact that there is no representation on the Bench of the Supreme Court from the High Court of Kerala.

The five-member Supreme Court Collegium is headed by the new Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna.The five-member collegium, which is responsible for recommending judges for the Supreme Court, and High Court judges, comprises of the Chief Justice of India and Justices B R Gavai, Surya Kant, Hrishikesh Roy and A S Oka. In a significant reshuffle, a three-member Collegium ahas been established and made responsible for appointing High Court judges, comprising the Chief Justice of India, Justices Gavai and Surya Kant.

Justice Ashutosh Kumar, the senior most judge of the Patna High Court is likely to take charge as the Acting Chief Justice of Patna High Court. Justice Kumar has been a judge of the Delhi High Court. He is due to retire on November 24, 2017.  

Justice Arvind Srivastava retires from Patna High Court after eight years

Justice Arvind Srivastava (62) served as judge of Patna High Court for eight years from December 2016 to April 3, 2024. There was a Full Court Farewell Reference on  April 3, in the Centenary Hall of Patna High Court in t.he honour of Justice Srivastava, who superannuate on that day.

He was elevated as an Additional Judge of the Patna High Court on December 9, 2016. During December 14, 2016- February 23, 2024, he was part of High Court's benches which delivered 1731 judgements. The number of judgements authored by him requires research.

On March 24, 2017, in his judgement, he observed that the petitioner's argument advanced by his counsel has force. "The Magistrate while passing the order impugned did not take into consideration the order of this Court dated 23.02.1995, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 1881 of 1994 whereby the Court below was directed to make further preliminary enquiry in the matter. The Court below was directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law after taking into consideration the report of the preliminary enquiry as also the result of the enquiry being held by the District Sub Registrar, Hajipur" in Asharafi Singh v. State of Bihar.  He concluded, "the order dated 19.07.2013 passed by Sri Ravi Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hajipur, Vaishali in Case No. C1-149/92, Trial No. 3689 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the Magistrate has found a prima facie case against the petitioner and others for offence under section 420, 423/34 of the Indian Penal code and summoned them for their appearance ignoring the order of this Hon’ble Court dated 23.02.1995, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 1881 of 1994, is set aside and the matter is again sent back to the Court below for disposing of the matter in accordance with law taking into consideration the further preliminary enquiry as also the result of the enquiry held by the District Sub Registrar, Hajipur, as directed earlier vide order dated 23.02.1995 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 1881 of 1994."

In this case the petitioner invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High  ourt with prayer to quash the order dated 19.07.2013 passed by Ravi Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hajipur, Vaishali in Case No. C1-149/92, Trial No. 3689 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the Magistrate has found a prima facie case
against the petitioner and others for offence under section 420, 423/34 of the Indian Penal code and summoned them for their appearance ignoring the order of this Hon’ble Court dated 23.02.1995, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 1881 of 1994. The allegation against the petitioner was that he along with others approached the complaint with request that his presence was required for attesting a sale deed as witness. However, by playing fraud, petitioner and others obtained his signature/thumb impression on several written stamp papers. Later he came to know that they got executed sale deed of his land for a consideration money of Rs. 40,000/- whereas the complainant was paid only a sum of Rs. 20,000/.  The petitioner's counsel submitted that upon investigation, police submitted final form coming to the conclusion that all the three sale deeds were voluntarily executed by the complainant after obtaining permission from the competent authorities and thus, found the case to be false. It was submitted that on protest being filed by the complainant, cognizance under section 420, 468/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code was taken. Thereafter, petitioner filed Cr. Misc. No. 1881 of 1994 before the High Court praying for quashing the order taking cognizance. The Court vide order dated 23.02.1995 had set aside the order taking cognizance dated 11.01.1994 and remitted back the matter to the Court below for disposal in accordance with law after further preliminary enquiry and taking into consideration the result of the enquiry being held by the District Sub Registrar, Hajipur. It was submitted that the District Sub Registrar after hearing the parties and after enquiry vide order dated 29.12.1995 found all the three sale deeds genuine which was approved by the Collector. The counsel submitted that the Magistrate while taking cognizance neither made any preliminary enquiry nor considered the result of the enquiry done by the District Sub Registrar. The counsel further submitted that the order impugned suffer from non-application of mind and is in utter violation of the orders of the High Court.

On May 11, 2018, in Shital Yadav v. State of Bihar, Justice Srivastava found that "the judgment of conviction of the appellants is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 10.05.2012 and the order of sentence dated 17.05.2012/19.05.2012, passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamui in Sessions Trial No. 237 of 2006 arising out of Sikandra P.S. Case No. 168 of 2005, is, hereby, set aside and the appeals are allowed. Since the appellants are in custody and the judgment of their conviction and sentence has been set aside, it is directed to release them forthwith, if not wanted in any other case."  The appeals had arisen out of judgment of conviction dated 10.05.2012 and the order of sentence dated 17.05.2012/19.05.2012, passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamui in Sessions Trial No. 237 of 2006 arising out of Sikandra P.S. Case No. 168 of 2005, whereby and whereunder appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under sections 302/34, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5000/- each for the offence under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, they have been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. They have further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code with fine of Rs. 500/- each. In default of payment of fine, they have been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. All the sentenced have been directed to run concurrently.

In Lalu Yadav v. State of Bihar, Justice Srivastava delivered a judgement on May 14, 2019 ordering release of the appellant on bail, in the event of arrest or surrender, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Ara in connection with Ara Mufassil P.S. Case No. 235 of 2018, subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of Cr. P.C. He set aside the order in question. The appellant had sought a pre-arrest bail in connection with a case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(IRS) 3/2-(V-A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has no criminal antecedent. There is specific allegation against co-accused persons. The appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. 

In one of the last acts of adjudication in 2024, his name figures as part of the division bench comprising Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra which gave the judgement in Subodh Yadav v. State of Bihar.  

On February 5, 2024, as part of a division bench, Justice Arvind Srivastava concluded that "there is no error in the decision of the Trial Court and this appeal is fit to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission itself" in Chhote Lal Rai v. State of Bihar. The criminal appeal was filed against the judgment of acquittal dated September 19, 2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 548 of 2015 arising out of Aurai P.S. Case No. 39 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the respondent nos. 2 to 6 (Ajay Rai, Dillep Rai, Nand Kishore Rai, Rakesh Rai and Umesh Rai) were have been acquitted from the charges under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Prior to his elevation as judge of the High Court, he had joined Bihar Superior Judicial Service as an Additional District and Sessions Judge in 1997, became the District & Sessions Judge of Kaimur in 2006 and District & Sessions Judge of Muzaffapur in 2011. He joined as Senior Legal Adviser to the Bihar State Electricity Board in 2008 and as Secretary to Lokayukta of Bihar in 2013.  He completed his LL.B. Degree from Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. He had enrolled as an advocate in 1985. He used to deal with civil matters in the District Court, Varanasi.

After the assault on Aurangabad judge, Madhubani judge assaulted by police officers

Bihar Police officers have assaulted Madhubani District & Sessions judge, according the order of Patna High Court's Division Bench. The court has summoned Chief Secretary, Bihar and DGP, Bihar on 29 November, 2021. Similar incident was reported last year from Aurangabad. 

In CWJC-19047/2021, the High Court on its own motion passed an order on a letter dated 18/12/2021 and summoned Chief Secretary, Bihar and DGP, Bihar. 

Station House Officer Gopal Krishna and Sub-Inspector of Police of Ghoghardiha, Madubani Abhimanyu Kumar Sharma  entered the chamber of judge Avinash Kumar and manhandled and abused the judge. 

In this alarming incident from Bihar, two police officers assaulted and abused an Additional District and Sessions Judge inside his chamber on 18/11/2021.

An order passed by the High Court based on the information received from District and Sessions Judge of Madhubani, narrated the sequence of events.

The order was passed on a suo motu case initiated by the High Court after receiving the communication from District and Sessions Judge, Madhubani regarding the incident.

The order said that Station House Officer Gopal Krishna and Sub-Inspector of Police of Ghoghardiha, Abhimanyu Kumar forcibly entered the chamber of judge Avinash Kumar who is an Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jhanjharpur, and started abusing and insultingvhim.

Both police officers manhandled the Judge and physically assaulted him, the High Court order said.

"They also took out their service revolvers and wanted to attack the officer. However, certain Court employees and Advocates reached their due to which life of the officer was saved," the order stated.

The High Court said that prima facie, it appeared that the episode is such that it puts the independence of judiciary in jeopardy.

The Court, therefore, issued notice to the senior most state officials. Lawyers associations have been demanding  independent security force for the court premises. There was a similar incident in Aurangabad last year wherein District Judge, Aurangabad was assaulted by a S.I. of Bihar Police. 

On October 21, 2020 an the unprecedented, unwarranted assault and intimidation occurred with  Dr. Dinesh Pradhan, District Judge, Aurangabad, Bihar by Bihar Police. Bihar Judicial Services Association and Association for Judges, Gujarat has condemned the incident.

Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL) took note of the Letter of Condemnation dated October 31, 2020 in the matter of unprecedented and unwarranted assault on Dr. Dinesh Pradhan, District Judge, Aurangabad, Bihar on October 21, 2020 by S.I. Pranav of Bihar Police in reaction to action against him and a few other police officers by Judge Dr. Pradhan for dereliction of duty a few months back when he was the chief judicial magistrate, Aurangabad. 

CFCL had sought details of the letters/statements of Bihar Judicial Services Association including its  October 24 letter to DGP and letters/statements of All India Judges Association. It is also looking for a copy of the Aurangabad DM's order initiating an inquiry into the matter, written application against erring police personnel with Town Police Station prior to the incident and after the incident. 

Association of Judges had rightly said that "This is not an assault on and insult with Dr. Pradhan   only  but   is   assault   on   and   insult   of the whole subordinate Judiciary of the nation." 

In such cases, unless higher judiciary ensures stringent exemplary action, the day is not far when the spark will reach the judges of High Courts and Supreme Court. State Government is expected to act immediately against the erring policemen after the elections.  The concerns raised by CFCL and Association of Judges in the earlier case remain germane in this case as well.