The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the January 27 ruling and scheduled a hearing before a bench led by Justice B R Gavai, which also included Justices Surya Kant and A S Oka. Justice Gavai remarked on the disturbing nature of the order as the court issued notices to the Centre, the Lokpal, and the complainant involved. Additionally, the Supreme Court instructed its judicial registrar to protect the identity of the complainant and to communicate with him through the Registrar Judicial of the relevant High Court. The court also prohibited the complainant from revealing the name of the judge in question or disclosing any details of the complaint.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, stated, “My perspective is grounded in the interpretation of the ‘relevant provisions’ upon which the order is based; a High Court judge would not fall under the purview of the Lokpal Act. There are constitutional provisions and certain judgments that support this assertion”. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal concurred with the sentiment, describing the situation as “very very disturbing” and indicating that it was “fraught with danger.” He emphasized the necessity of establishing clear legal principles. Justices Gavai and Oka articulated that, following the adoption of the Constitution, High Court judges are recognized as constitutional authorities rather than mere statutory officials, as concluded by the Lokpal. “Each judge embodies the High Court,” Mehta remarked.
