Judges can be prosecuted for criminal misconduct under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947

The Court held that Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are considered public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. It was determined that Judges can be prosecuted for criminal misconduct under Section 5(1)(e) of the Act, with the President of India being the competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution. The Court emphasized maintaining judicial independence while allowing for prosecution of Judges for criminal offenses. A dissenting opinion argued that the Act does not apply to Judges of the higher judiciary, suggesting the need for a separate legislative framework to address judicial corruption.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a Judge of the Supreme Court or a Judge of a High Court is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. Whether a Judge of the Supreme Court or a Judge of a High Court, including the Chief Justice, can be prosecuted for criminal misconduct u/s 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
3. Who is the competent authority to remove a Judge of the Supreme Court or High Court to grant sanction for prosecution u/s 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

Summary:

1. Whether a Judge of the Supreme Court or a Judge of a High Court is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947:
The Court held that the definition of a public servant is broad enough to include Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act interprets a public servant as defined in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, which includes "Every Judge including any person empowered by law to discharge, whether by himself or as a member of any body of persons, any adjudicatory functions."

2. Whether a Judge of the Supreme Court or a Judge of a High Court, including the Chief Justice, can be prosecuted for criminal misconduct u/s 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947:
The Court concluded that a Judge could be held liable for criminal misconduct if found in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to their known sources of income, which they cannot satisfactorily account for, as per Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, the initiation of such proceedings requires the previous sanction of the authority competent to remove the Judge from office, as mandated by Section 6(1)(c) of the Act.

3. Who is the competent authority to remove a Judge of the Supreme Court or High Court to grant sanction for prosecution u/s 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947:
The Court held that the President of India is the authority competent to grant sanction for the prosecution of a Judge under Section 6(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The President must act in accordance with the advice of the Chief Justice of India in such matters. For the Chief Justice of India, the President should consult other Judges of the Supreme Court as deemed fit. The purpose of this consultation is to protect Judges from frivolous and malicious prosecution, thereby maintaining the independence and integrity of the judiciary.

Additional Observations:
- The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the independence of the judiciary from executive influence while ensuring that Judges are not immune from prosecution for criminal offenses.
- The Court also noted the need for a proper legislative framework to address the issue of corruption within the judiciary, suggesting that the Parliament could enact specific laws to deal with such matters in a manner consistent with the constitutional provisions for the removal of Judges.

Dissenting Opinion:
One of the Judges dissented, arguing that the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, as it stands, does not apply to Judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court. The dissenting opinion suggested that the constitutional scheme and the special provisions for the removal of Judges under Article 124(4) and (5) of the Constitution indicate that Judges of the higher judiciary were not intended to be covered by the general provisions applicable to public servants. The dissenting Judge also highlighted the need for a separate legislative framework to address the issue of corruption within the judiciary.

---