Context: Recently, the Supreme Court stayed a ruling by the Lokpal, which had asserted its authority to investigate High Court judges under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. 
Describing the Lokpal’s decision as “very disturbing”, the apex court issued a notice to the Centre and the Registrar of Lokpal.   

Key Observation

• SC observed that all judges (High Court and Supreme Court) are appointed under the Constitution, implying immunity from Lokpal jurisdiction.

• According to a report, the Lokpal’s order stemmed from two complaints alleging that a sitting additional judge of a High Court had influenced an additional district judge and another High Court judge in a case involving a private company. 

• The complaints claimed that the company had previously been a client of the High Court judge when he was practicing as an advocate.   

Lokpal’s Observations

• Lokpal in a recent order had classified High Court judges as "public servants" under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, subjecting them to its jurisdiction. 

• However, previously, Lokpal had ruled that Chief Justice of India (CJI) and SC Judges do not come under Lokpal's jurisdiction as the SC was not established by an Act of the Parliament.

• Basis of reasoning: High Courts were established by British Acts (e.g., Indian High Courts Act, 1861) and pre-date the Indian Constitution, unlike the Supreme Court, which was created by Article 124 of the Constitution.

Jurisdiction of Lokpal (Under Section 14 of Lokpal Act, 2013)

• Former/ Present Prime Minister: Excludes matters of international relations, security, public order, atomic energy, and space. 

• Initiation of Inquiry requires a full bench of Lokpal {(Chairperson + all Members) with at least 2/3rd of its members approval}

• Former/Present Minister of Union or  Member of either House of Parliament

• Government Officials: Group 'A', 'B', 'C', or 'D' serving in connection with the affairs of the Government of India.

• Chairpersons/Member/Officer/Employee of any body, authority, company, trust, etc;

• Established by an Act of Parliament or Partially or wholly funded or controlled by the Central Government, or

• Received foreign donations  greater than Rs10 lakh/year under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010.

About Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013

• The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, establishes a multi-member anti-corruption body with the authority to investigate allegations of corruption against high-ranking public officials.

• The Lokpal is responsible for handling cases at the central level, while Lokayuktas are set up by individual states to deal with corruption cases at the state level.

Key Features of the Act

• Establishment of Lokpal: A central institution headed by a chairperson and up to eight members, including judicial and non-judicial members.

• Jurisdiction: Covers the Prime Minister (with certain exceptions), Ministers, MPs, and Group A and B officers of the central government.

• Lokayuktas in States: Every state is required to establish a Lokayukta to investigate corruption allegations against state officials.

• Inquiry and Prosecution Powers: Lokpal has power to order inquiries, recommend prosecution, and direct disciplinary action.

• Whistleblower Protection: The Act provides safeguards for whistleblowers reporting corruption cases.

Significance of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act

• Strengthening Anti-Corruption Measures: The Act provides an independent watchdog mechanism to investigate corruption cases at both central and state levels, ensuring greater transparency in public office.

• Public Accountability: By bringing top government officials, including the Prime Minister and MPs, under scrutiny, the Act reinforces public trust in governance.

• Empowering Lokpal with Investigative Powers: The Lokpal has the authority to conduct independent inquiries and recommend prosecution without needing prior government approval.

• Ensuring State-Level Vigilance: The requirement to set up Lokayuktas in every state strengthens state-level anti-corruption mechanisms.

Challenges and Criticisms

• Delay in Lokayukta Implementation: Many states have not yet appointed Lokayuktas, weakening the state-level anti-corruption framework.

• Limited Investigative Autonomy: The CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation), which assists in investigations, still functions under government control, affecting its independence.

• Lack of Public Awareness: Many citizens are unaware of Lokpal’s role and how to file complaints, reducing its effectiveness.

• Political Interference: Critics argue that appointments to Lokpal are influenced by the ruling government, impacting its impartiality.

Implications of the Supreme Court’s Stay

• Maintaining Judicial Independence: The decision reinforces that judges cannot be treated as public servants under the Lokpal Act.

• Clarification of Jurisdiction: It highlights the difference between High Court and Supreme Court judges, as the Lokpal had earlier ruled that it does not have jurisdiction over Supreme Court judges.

• Legal Precedent: The case could set a precedent for future interpretations of judicial accountability under anti-corruption laws.