As soon as the special bench assembled, Justice Gavai told Mehta, “We propose to issue notice to the Union of India.”Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who also appeared in the matter, said he would like to assist the bench in dealing with the matter.”Something very very disturbing,” Justice Gavai remarked. It is fraught with danger, Sibal said while seeking a stay on the Lokpal’s order.He said, “I think a law should be laid down.”The bench said the matter would be heard again on March 18, subject to directions of the chief justice of India.The bench noted that Sibal and another senior advocate had offered to assist the court “since the matter is of a great significance concerning the independence of judiciary.””Once the finding that the Lokpal has a jurisdiction stands stayed, I think they are aware what are the ramifications of this order. If they don’t understand this, then we are here,” Justice Gavai observed.The Lokpal passed the order on two complaints filed against a sitting additional judge of the high court.The complaints alleged that he influenced an additional district judge in the state and a judge of the same high court who had to deal with the suit filed against the complainant by a private company to favour that firm.It was alleged that the private company was earlier a client of the named high court judge while he was practising as an advocate at the Bar.In its order, the Lokpal directed the complaints and relevant materials received in its registry in two matters be forwarded to the office of the CJI for his kind consideration.”Awaiting the guidance of the Chief Justice of India, consideration of these complaints, for the time being, is deferred until four weeks from today, keeping in mind the statutory time frame to dispose of the complaint in terms of Section 20 (4) of the Act of 2013.”We make it amply clear that by this order we have decided a singular issue finally — as to whether the judges of the high court established by an Act of Parliament come within the ambit of Section 14 of the Act of 2013, in the affirmative. No more and no less. In that, we have not looked into or examined the merits of the allegations at all,” the Lokpal bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar said on January 27.
Source link
