Supreme Court Throws Brakes on Lokpal's Ambitions
The Supreme Court’s recent move to stop the Lokpal from investigating high court judges has triggered a huge debate in India’s legal circles. Not every day do two constitutional bodies lock horns over who gets to police the country’s judiciary. The roots of the dispute trace back to a Lokpal order in January 2025, where a seven-member bench, led by ex-Supreme Court judge Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, claimed it could look into complaints against high court judges. The Lokpal based this on its reading of Section 14 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, arguing these judges counted as 'public functionaries.' Meanwhile, Supreme Court judges themselves were supposedly outside its reach, since their appointments stem directly from Article 124 of the Constitution.
This difference might sound like legal hair-splitting, but it could change how the judiciary is held accountable. The background? A citizen accused an additional judge and a district judge in a high court of manipulating legal proceedings to aid a private company. The Lokpal didn’t immediately call for action—it instead passed on the complaints to the Chief Justice of India, asking for advice, but made it clear it thought it had the right to probe high court judges if it wanted to. That was enough to ring alarm bells at the Supreme Court.
Where Do You Draw the Line on Oversight?
On February 20, 2025, a three-judge Supreme Court bench intervened and put the Lokpal’s order on ice. Justice B.R. Gavai, leading the bench, called the Lokpal’s claims 'disturbing.' His main gripe? The basic structure of India’s Constitution means judicial independence can’t be undermined, and high court judges don’t suddenly become answerable to a statutory watchdog just because Parliament passed a law. The court insisted that both Supreme Court and high court judges derive their authority directly from the Constitution—and only constitutional mechanisms, not the Lokpal, can oversee their conduct.
This showdown is about more than dry legal arguments. It’s about institutional turf, and the stakes are high. Can you really have anti-corruption bodies peering over a judge’s shoulder every time someone files a complaint? Or does that risk scaring judges out of making tough or unpopular rulings? At the same time, a hands-off policy gives critics ammunition to claim the judiciary polices itself with too much leniency.
The Supreme Court noticed that the Lokpal sent the complaints to the CJI—a move that, judges argued, wasn’t really backed by any law. They wondered aloud whether this was just the Lokpal hedging bets, or a sign that even the Lokpal realized policing judges isn’t straightforward. To guide the next steps, the Supreme Court brought in an amicus curiae, a neutral legal advisor, to help sort out whether the Lokpal’s reach actually extends this far under the law.
At the heart of the fight is the balance between anti-corruption efforts and keeping courts independent. Both principles matter, but finding the sweet spot is tricky. The Supreme Court has effectively said: for now, hands off our judges. But the larger question about who actually makes judges answerable—and how—remains unresolved, setting the stage for one of India’s most closely watched legal battles.
- Supreme Court asserts exclusive right to oversee judicial conduct
- Lokpal stands its ground on jurisdiction under Section 14 of the 2013 Act
- Judicial independence vs. public accountability takes center stage
- All eyes on forthcoming Supreme Court hearings for the final word
