The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on an appeal filed by the Lokpal of India challenging a judgment of the Delhi High Court, while agreeing to examine key questions regarding the scope of the Lokpal’s powers under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, particularly its role at the stages of investigation and prosecution.
The appeal arises from a judgment of the Delhi High Court, which had interpreted provisions of the Act relating to the filing of a chargesheet and sanction for prosecution. The Lokpal approached the Supreme Court, contending that contradictory interpretations in multiple judgments of the same bench of the High Court have created uncertainty regarding the procedure to be followed.
Counsel appearing for the Lokpal told the Court that the appeal was not directed against any individual but was filed to obtain an authoritative interpretation of the statutory provisions governing the institution’s functioning.
“We are not here about any one individual… it is about the interplay of different parts of the sections. For the functioning of the Lokpal, we need an authoritative pronouncement so that our procedure is put intact.”
It was argued that the Delhi High Court had erred in its interpretation of the Lokpal Act, particularly regarding the requirement of sanction at different stages of the proceedings. He submitted that once the Lokpal decides that its prosecution wing should file a chargesheet and conduct prosecution before the Special Court, the statute already empowers it to proceed in accordance with the investigation report.
Referring to the statutory framework, he contended that Sections 12(2) and 12(3) of the Act clearly enable the prosecution wing of the Lokpal to file the chargesheet based on the findings of the investigation. It was further submitted that the High Court had incorrectly treated Section 20(8) as requiring a second sanction, arguing that such a reading was contrary to the plain language of the provision. It was emphasised that the controversy before the Court was limited to the interpretation of Sections 20(7) and 20(8) of the Lokpal Act and their interplay with the provisions governing investigation and prosecution.
During the hearing, the Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi indicated that it would examine the High Court’s finding that the Lokpal’s powers are limited to investigation and that it does not have a role in prosecution. Referring to the statutory framework, the Court observed that this conclusion would have to be tested in light of the scheme of the Act.
“We will want to examine the finding… where the judge says that the power of the Lokpal is prescribed in investigation and it does not have a role in prosecution. This we require to examine in light of Section 12 of the Act.”
During the hearing, the Bench noted that while Sections 20(7) and 20(8) of the Lokpal Act may appear to overlap, they in fact deal with distinct stages of the anti-corruption process — filing of the chargesheet and conduct of prosecution. Emphasising the statutory purpose of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, the Court observed that the legislation was designed to ensure public confidence in the inquiry, investigation and prosecution of corruption allegations against high public officials, who may otherwise influence investigative agencies. The Bench remarked:
“If you see the two provisions, apparently they overlap. But there are very fine distinctions between the filing of the chargesheet and the conduct of prosecution.”
The Court further noted that the Lokpal Act was enacted to insulate anti-corruption proceedings involving high public servants, observing:
“The Lokpal Act is an Act to ensure and insulate, create public confidence in inquiry, investigation and prosecution of public servants, where public servants are highly placed and there is a real or perceptible fear that he or she may disable these agencies from fairly conducting their statutory duties.”
Explaining the statutory scheme, the Bench observed that once the Lokpal grants sanction after examining the fairness and conclusions of the investigation, the normal course would be for the prosecution to be conducted by the prosecuting agency aligned with the investigating agency. However, Section 20(8) appears to give the Lokpal a further supervisory role in ensuring that the prosecution is properly carried forward.
The Court clarified that it would examine the issue in detail but refrained from expressing a final opinion at this stage so that the arguments of counsel are not pre-empted.
In the interim, the Supreme Court directed that the Lokpal need not comply with paragraph 89 of the Delhi High Court judgment, which had directed the passing of a composite order under the Act.
The Court clarified that the notice is being issued only for the limited purpose of interpreting the relevant statutory provisions and should not be construed as permitting any action against the respondent public servant in the meantime.
Appearances
Sr Adv Vikas Singh
SG Tushar Mehta