Latest news with #LokpalandLokayuktasAct
NDTV
29-05-2025
- Business
- NDTV
'Political Reasons': Lokpal Rips Into Complainants In Madhabi Puri Buch Case
New Delhi: Dismissing all allegations against former SEBI chairperson Madhabi Puri Buch, the Lokpal had also pulled up the complainants for approaching it with "unclean hands" and for purely political reasons. The anti-corruption body also warned that the complainants' conduct trivialised the process and amounted to "vexatious proceedings", which is potentially punishable under Section 46 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. The complaints had been filed by Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan and former IPS officer Amitabh Thakur. In its 116-page order dismissing the complaints against the former Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) chief, the Lokpal said they were based "more on presumptions and assumptions and not supported by any verifiable material and do not attract the ingredients of the offences... so as to direct an investigation." Warning that such conduct trivialised the process, the Lokpal said it amounted to vexatious proceedings which could be punishable. Section 46 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act provides for the prosecution of individuals who file false or frivolous complaints, with penalties including imprisonment of up to a year and a fine of up to Rs 1 lakh. Ms Buch had been accused of having investments linked to the Adani Group, quid pro quo disguised as consultancy fees and rental income, undue gains from ICICI Bank employee stock options and a "pretence of recusal" from certain cases. The Lokpal noted that the complaints, which were filed last year, were essentially based on the report "by a known short seller trader (Hindenburg Research) whose focus was to expose or corner Adani Group of Companies". The Lokpal order said, "The effectiveness of the investigations and action taken by SEBI against the Adani Group of companies has commended to the Supreme Court. That cannot be reopened directly or indirectly..." It also said that the Hindenburg report by itself cannot be made the sole basis to escalate action against Ms Buch. "The complainant(s) being conscious of this position advisedly attempted to articulate allegations independent of the stated report but the analysis of the allegations by us, ended with a finding that the same are untenable, unsubstantiated and bordering on frivolity," it noted. "The complainant (s) by making such unverified and flimsy or fragile allegations, only to sensationalise or so to say politicise the matter, has inevitably trivialised the process before the Lokpal," the anti-corruption body added. 'Generating Publicity' The Lokpal also expressed concern over the decision of one complainant decision to publicise the filing of the complaint on social media. This, the order noted, was in clear breach of the confidentiality requirements enshrined in the Lokpal Act and showed that the complaints were filed not with a bona fide intention of seeking justice, but rather to generate publicity. It was noted that when the media campaign fizzled out due to a lack of interest, the complainants turned to the Lokpal in what appeared to be an attempt to 'keep the issue alive'.
Time of India
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Controversial Lokpal Ruling: SC to take up matter in July
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday deferred to July the hearing of a suo motu case, pertaining to a recent ruling of the Lokpal which held that the anti-corruption ombudsman can entertain complaints against high court judges under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. #Pahalgam Terrorist Attack A Chinese shadow falls on Pahalgam terror attack case probe How India can use water to pressure Pakistan Buzzkill: How India can dissolve the Pakistan problem, not just swat it A three member bench comprising justices BR Gavai, Surya Kant and Abhay S Oka said the matter will have to go before another bench. Justice Oka, who is set to retire on May 25, said "it is a matter of propriety". Justice Gavai added the bench "will have it (the case) somewhere in July". At the last hearing, the SC had appointed senior advocate and former solicitor general Ranjit Kumar as amicus curiae in the case. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, at the last hearing, had submitted that the issue involves only a question of law and it was clear from the Lokpal Act itself that there was no jurisdiction for the body to entertain the complaint. Continue to video 5 5 Next Stay Playback speed 1x Normal Back 0.25x 0.5x 1x Normal 1.5x 2x 5 5 / Skip Ads by by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like After Losing Weight Kevin James Looks Like A Model 33 Bridges Undo "Only one section of the Lokpal Act needs to be examined," Mehta had argued.
The Hindu
30-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Supreme Court sets July to hear matter over Lokpal's jurisdiction in examining complaints against judges
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (April 30, 2025) decided to hear in July arguments over an order of the anti-corruption ombudsman, Lokpal, to examine complaints against sitting High Court judges. Justice B.R. Gavai, who was heading a special bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Abhay S. Oka, told assembled lawyers in the suo motu case dealing with the question whether Lokpal has jurisdiction to entertain corruption complaints against HC judges that the case has to be heard by another Bench. Justice Oka, on the Special Bench with Justice Surya Kant, explains to senior advocate Kapil Sibal and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that 'this is something for the CJI to decide' and propriety required the current Bench to not continue hearing the suo motu case. Justice Gavai was cleared for appointment as the 52nd Chief Justice of India from May 14. Justice Gavai, who is currently Chief Justice of India-designate, informed lawyers that the suo motu case would come up before a fresh Bench in July, after the apex court re-opens post summer vacations. The apex court was dealing with a suo motu proceeding initiated over the Lokpal's January 27 order on two complaints filed against a sitting additional judge of the high court. The complaints allege the judge influenced an additional district judge in the state and a judge of the same high court slated to deal with a suit filed against the complainant by a private company to favour the firm. The private company, it was alleged, was earlier a client of the high court judge in question while he was practising as an advocate at the Bar. The top court had on February 20 stayed the Lokpal's order, saying it was 'something very, very disturbing' and concerned the independence of the judiciary. It then issued notices and sought responses from the Centre, the Lokpal registrar and the complainant. While hearing the matter on March 18, the apex court said it would examine the issue over the jurisdiction of Lokpal in entertaining complaints against sitting high court judges. It asked senior advocate Ranjit Kumar to assist it as an amicus curiae in the matter. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said a high court judge would never fall within the ambit of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. In its order, the Lokpal directed the complaints and relevant materials received in its registry in the two matters to be forwarded to the office of the Chief Justice of India for his 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,' said the Lokpal bench headed by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar on January 27. The Lokpal added, '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 order noted it would be 'too naive' to argue that a high court judge would not come within the ambit of expression 'any person' in clause (f) of section 14 (1) of the 2013 Act. (With PTI inputs)
Time of India
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Supreme Court sets July to hear matter over Lokpal's jurisdiction in examining complaints against judges
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel The Supreme Court on Wednesday decided to hear in July arguments over an order of anti-corruption ombudsman Lokpal to examine complaints against sitting high court judges Justice B R Gavai , who was heading a special bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Abhay S Oka, said the matter will have to go before another bench."It is something for the chief justice to decide," Justice Oka said, "it is a matter of propriety.""We will have it somewhere in July," Justice Gavai apex court was dealing with a suo motu proceeding initiated over the Lokpal's January 27 order on two complaints filed against a sitting additional judge of the high complaints allege the judge influenced an additional district judge in the state and a judge of the same high court slated to deal with a suit filed against the complainant by a private company to favour the private company, it was alleged, was earlier a client of the high court judge in question while he was practising as an advocate at the top court had on February 20 stayed the Lokpal's order, saying it was "something very, very disturbing" and concerned the independence of the then issued notices and sought responses from the Centre, the Lokpal registrar and the hearing the matter on March 18, the apex court said it would examine the issue over the jurisdiction of Lokpal in entertaining complaints against sitting high court asked senior advocate Ranjit Kumar to assist it as an amicus curiae in the general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said a high court judge would never fall within the ambit of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, its order, the Lokpal directed the complaints and relevant materials received in its registry in the two matters to be forwarded to the office of the Chief Justice of India for his 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," said the Lokpal bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar on January Lokpal added, "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 order noted it would be "too naive" to argue that a high court judge would not come within the ambit of expression "any person" in clause (f) of section 14 (1) of the 2013 Act.
Hindustan Times
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC sets July to hear matter over Lokpal's jurisdiction in examining complaints against judges
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Wednesday decided to hear in July arguments over an order of anti-corruption ombudsman Lokpal to examine complaints against sitting high court judges. Justice B R Gavai, who was heading a special bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Abhay S Oka, said the matter will have to go before another bench. "It is something for the chief justice to decide," Justice Oka, "it is a matter of propriety." "We will have it somewhere in July," Justice Gavai added. The apex court was dealing with a suo motu proceeding initiated over the Lokpal's January 27 order on two complaints filed against a sitting additional judge of the high court. The complaints allege the judge influenced an additional district judge in the state and a judge of the same high court slated to deal with a suit filed against the complainant by a private company to favour the firm. The private company, it was alleged, was earlier a client of the high court judge in question while he was practising as an advocate at the Bar. The top court had on February 20 stayed the Lokpal's order, saying it was "something very, very disturbing" and concerned the independence of the judiciary. It then issued notices and sought responses from the Centre, the Lokpal registrar and the complainant. While hearing the matter on March 18, the apex court said it would examine the issue over the jurisdiction of Lokpal in entertaining complaints against sitting high court judges. It asked senior advocate Ranjit Kumar to assist it as an amicus curiae in the matter. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said a high court judge would never fall within the ambit of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. In its order, the Lokpal directed the complaints and relevant materials received in its registry in the two matters to be forwarded to the office of the Chief Justice of India for his 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 of the Act of 2013," said the Lokpal bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar on January 27. The Lokpal added, "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 order noted it would be "too naive" to argue that a high court judge would not come within the ambit of expression "any person" in clause of section 14 of the 2013 Act.
