The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear questions about Lockpal’s jurisdiction when reviewing the judge’s complaint

The Supreme Court decided on Wednesday to try the debate in July’s order on anti-corruption ombudsman Lokpal to review complaints against high court judges. Justice Br Gavai, who is responsible for the special bench composed of judges Surya Kant and Abhay S Oka, said the matter must be advanced on another bench. Judge Oka said: “This is the decision of the Chief Justice, it is a matter of etiquette.”
Judge Gawai added: “We will put it somewhere somewhere in July.”
The Supreme Court is handling the SUO MOTU lawsuit initiated by Lokpal on January 27 against two complaints filed by the High Court’s additional judge.

The complaint said the judge affected another district judge in the state, as well as a judge in the High Court, who planned to handle lawsuits filed by a private company against the complainant in support of the company.

The private company was allegedly a client of the High Court judges earlier, when he was an advocate of the Bar Association. The Supreme Court retained Lokpal’s order on February 20, calling it “a very, very disturbing thing” and involving the independence of the judiciary. It then issued a notice and sought responses from the Centre, Lokpal registrar and complainant.

The Supreme Court, when hearing the matter on March 18, said it would review questions about Lockpall’s jurisdiction to entertain complaints against high court judges.

It asked senior advocate Ranjit Kumar to assist it on this issue in a matching a friend of the court.

Deputy Attorney General Tushar Mehta appeared at the centre and said that the High Court judges would never fall within the scope of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013.

The complaints and related materials received in its registry as directed by its order will be forwarded to the Office of the Chief Justice of India for his consideration.

“Waiting for guidance from the Chief Justice of India, taking these complaints into account, temporarily delaying them to today’s four weeks, keeping in mind the statutory timeline to handle the complaints under Section 20(4) of the 2013 Act,” said the LOKPAL seat of LOKPAL BECHEND on January 27.

Lokpal added: “We are very clear that by this order, we ultimately decided a single question – it is certain whether the High Court judges established by the Parliamentary Act fall within the scope of Article 14 of the 2013 Act. Not only that. In this case, we have not studied or reviewed the advantages of the allegations.”

The order states that it is believed that the High Court judges would not be “too naive” within the scope of expression of “anyone” in Section 14(1)(f) of the 2013 Act.