Lokpal: A Threat to Judicial Independence?

Ahmed Raza

The recent decision to include High Court judges under the Lokpal’s anti-corruption purview, outlined in its 27 January order, has raised concerns about the potential threat to the independence of India’s judiciary. This decision, which was initially aimed at improving accountability and reducing corruption, has been met with mixed reactions, particularly following the Supreme Court’s intervention. The Supreme Court’s decision to stay the Lokpal order, citing the disturbing interpretation it might set, brings to the forefront the delicate balance between ensuring judicial accountability and protecting the independence of the judiciary. The issue lies not just in the technicalities of the legal interpretation, but in the broader implications for the relationship between the judiciary and other branches of the government.

The judiciary has long been considered a pillar of democracy, with the ability to act as a check on the executive and legislature. The independence of the judiciary is fundamental to the effective functioning of this check-and-balance system. When judges are subjected to external oversight mechanisms like the Lokpal, which primarily focuses on corruption within governmental bodies, it raises concerns about how this could erode public confidence in the judicial system.

The Lokpal’s jurisdiction covers the Prime Minister (PM), Ministers, Members of Parliament (MPs), and Central Government officers from Groups A, B, C, and D. It includes the PM except in matters related to international relations, security, atomic energy, space, and public order. The Lokpal does not have authority over Ministers and MPs concerning statements made or votes cast in Parliament.

The Lokpal also has jurisdiction over civil servants and bureaucrats, including directors, managers, and secretaries of entities set up by central law or financed/controlled by the central government. It extends to those involved in bribery or abetment of corruption.

Additionally, the Lokpal Act requires all public officials to declare their assets and liabilities, along with those of their dependents. The Lokpal holds the power of superintendence over the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and can direct its actions. If a case is referred to the CBI by the Lokpal, the investigating officer in the case cannot be transferred without the Lokpal’s approval.

The SC judges are public servants under Prevention of Corruption Act but are not public servants under Lokpal Act. The SC was established by the constitution. The HCs pre-existed the constitution and are only ‘recognised’ by it. A judge of an HC is established by an Act of Parliament will come within the ambit of expression ‘any person’ in Section 14 (1) (f) of the Lokpal Act. Hence, the fundamental question is whether such external scrutiny could lead to undue influence on judicial decisions, with the potential for political or other extraneous factors to affect impartiality. While the goal of tackling corruption in all arms of the state is noble, the manner in which this is proposed could inadvertently compromise the sanctity of the judiciary.

The Lokpal order, in its bid to include judges under its ambit, seems to be driven by the perception that no institution should be beyond scrutiny. This includes the judiciary, which plays a crucial role in interpreting and enforcing laws. The Lokpal order says that High Court judges were ‘public servants’ and came within the ambit of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act of 2013. However, the proposal to bring judges under the anti-corruption ombudsman could set a troubling precedent for the relationship between the judiciary and the executive. Judicial independence is safeguarded by a series of constitutional provisions and norms, ensuring that judges are insulated from any external pressures that could influence their decisions. If judges were to be subjected to the scrutiny of an external body like the Lokpal, there is a risk that their decisions could be questioned or influenced by factors unrelated to the case at hand. This could fundamentally alter the way the judiciary functions, not necessarily for the better, but in ways that could compromise its impartiality and integrity.

The Supreme Court’s decision to pause the implementation of the Lokpal order has raised important concerns about its impact. The Court’s action highlights the need to protect the independence of the judiciary and prevent unnecessary outside interference. While it is important to hold all sectors accountable, the idea of subjecting judges to external scrutiny by an agency like Lokpal could weaken judicial authority. This is a serious issue because the judiciary must be free from outside influences that could affect its fairness and impartiality. If judges are influenced by political pressure or other factors, it could lead to decisions that are not based on the law but on external considerations. Judicial independence is essential for upholding the rule of law, as it ensures that legal decisions are made based on facts, evidence, and legal principles, not on outside pressures. Without this independence, the entire legal system could be in danger, as people might lose trust in the fairness and integrity of the judiciary. Therefore, the Supreme Court’s decision to stay the Lokpal order is an important reminder of the need to safeguard judicial independence and ensure that judges can make unbiased decisions.

In conclusion, while the aim of tackling corruption within the judicial system is undoubtedly a worthy cause, the proposed inclusion of High Court judges under the anti-corruption ombudsman raises significant concerns.

The Supreme Court’s stay on the Lokpal order serves as a reminder of the delicate balance that must be struck between transparency and judicial independence. It is imperative that we find ways to ensure accountability within the judiciary without jeopardizing its autonomy. Any attempt to undermine this independence can have detrimental effects on public trust in the system, and ultimately, on the very foundation of the rule of law. Hence, it is essential to consider alternative mechanisms that maintain the sanctity of the judicial process while ensuring that corruption, wherever it may exist, is addressed with due care and respect for the fundamental principles of the Indian Constitution.

[Dr Ahmed Raza, Assistant Professor, Department of Public Administration, MANUU, Gachibowli, Hyderabad–500032]

Back to Home Page

Frontier
Vol 57, No. 40, March 30 - Apr 5, 2025