The Supreme Court on Monday heard the Lokpal of India’s challenge to a Delhi High Court judgment quashing proceedings initiated against Defence Secretary Rajesh Kumar Singh and others over alleged irregularities in promotions at the National Productivity Council (NPC), with the Bench questioning whether the matter involved any element of criminality warranting the Lokpal’s intervention.
During the hearing, senior advocateVikas Singh, appearing for Rajesh Kumar Singh, submitted that the case concerned promotion-related irregularities and not allegations of corruption. He argued that a CBI preliminary inquiry had already found no case of corruption, and that Singh, who was not the DPIIT Secretary when the promotions took place, was sought to be proceeded against only because, as the appellate authority, he referred the issue to the NPC’s governing body instead of deciding the appeals himself.
The Bench observed that the allegations, at least prima facie, appeared to concern an error of judgment rather than criminal misconduct, and questioned whether the Lokpal ought to devote its resources to such matters.
“
Bench:“Would the Hon’ble Lokpal consider going into such trivial issues? There is some selection process where he was not even involved…Not deciding an appeal can never be a crime. This can’t be Lokpal.”
Appearing for the Lokpal, Senior Advocate Ranjith Kumar submitted that the principal issue before the Court was the interpretation of Section 20 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, particularly whether the Lokpal can disagree with a closure report submitted after a preliminary inquiry and issue a show-cause notice to the public servant before deciding whether further investigation is warranted. He argued that the respondents had approached the High Court immediately after receiving the notice, preventing the Lokpal from completing the statutory process.
The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, however, cautioned that while the Lokpal may possess such statutory powers, the institution must exercise restraint.
“
“If you will start issuing notice in such-like matters, you will also be extremely overburdened.”
After hearing the parties, the Court indicated that the controversy substantially related to the interpretation of Section 20, observed that the High Court had already permitted the Lokpal to proceed in accordance with law after following the statutory procedure, and expressed that there appeared to be no necessity to entertain the appeal further.