Supreme Court appoints Ranjit Kumar as Amicus in case on Lokpal's controversial order against HC judges

The Supreme Court on Tuesday appointed former Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar as Amicus Curiae in the suo motu case concerning recent Lokpal ruling that it can entertain complaints against High Court judges under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013..A Bench of Justices BR Gavai, Surya Kant and Abhay S Oka passed the order appointing Kumar as Amicus."We deem fit that Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar to act as amicus Curiae and assist the court," the Bench directed.The Court then posted the case for further consideration on April 15 at 2 pm. The Court had during the previous hearing on February 20 stayed the Lokpal order while remarking that the order was "very disturbing" and had issued notice to the Union of India and the registrar of Lokpal."Something very very disturbing," Justice Gavai had remarked at the outset of the suo motu case initiated by the Court following the order passed by the Lokpal on January 27.The Court had also said the matter was of great importance, concerning the independence of the judiciary. .The Lokpal had given the controversial finding on January 27 while dealing with two complaints against a High Court judge accusing him of influencing an Additional District Judge and another High Court judge in a suit."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 had said in the order.Pertinently, the complaints were also forwarded to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) by Lokpal. .Lokpal's full Bench headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar ruled that a High Court judge meets the definition of 'public servant' and that the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 does not exclude the judges.However, Lokpal also decided to first approach the CJI for guidance on the issue and accordingly deferred further action on the complaints."Awaiting the guidance of the Hon'ble 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," the Lokpal said in its order.Pertinently, the Lokpal redacted the name of the judge and the High Court before making its decision public.The Supreme Court then initiated a suo motu case against the ruling..The top court on February 20 stayed the Lokpal order and also injuncted the person, who filed complaints against the High Court judge before Lokpal, from disclosing the judge's name and the contents of the complaint. .When the matter was taken up for hearing today, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal said,"Can a complaint be filed outside the remit of the constitutional authority. Like police etc... this is larger matter."Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Central government then stated,"Question is not how police should consider. We have Veeraswamy judgment and how sanction shall be granted."The Court noted that the complainant before Lokpal is present before the Court in person and he does not need legal assistance."The complainant is personally present in the court. Affidavit has been filed in support of his submission. He has been asked if he would like to have legal services assistance. He says affidavit has it all and no assistance needed," the Court recorded in its order.The Court then allowed the complainant to appear and argue in person."Complainant we will mask your name. We will consider the cause you seek to espouse. If you want you can appear online," the Court remarked.The complainant said that he will appear before the Court physically.The Court then appointed Ranjit Kumar as Amicus and deferred the hearing for further consideration on April 15..SG Mehta submitted that a Judge of the High Court cannot come within the purview of the 2013 Act and the Impugned Order ought to be set aside. .[Read Live Coverage]