Huge unaccounted currency was found in the Chambers of a Judge of Higher Judiciary. When the Police wanted to proceed against the Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, he took the plea that he is not a ‘Public Servant’ therefore not within the purview of the Act. Decide.

Facts of the Case

Huge quantities of unaccounted currency were discovered in the chambers of a Judge belonging to the Higher Judiciary (High Court or Supreme Court). The police authorities, acting upon this discovery, intended to initiate criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA), alleging that the Judge had acquired illegal wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income.
However, the Judge took the defense that he is not a “Public Servant” and, therefore, cannot be prosecuted under the provisions of the PCA. The situation raises a constitutional and statutory question concerning the status and accountability of judges of the higher judiciary.

Issues in the Case

1. Whether a Judge of the High Court or Supreme Court is included within the definition of “Public Servant” under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Whether criminal proceedings can be initiated against a sitting Judge without prior sanction.
3. Whether judicial independence prevents or restricts criminal investigation into the conduct of judges.
4. What is the constitutional mechanism for disciplining or removing judges accused of corruption or misconduct.

Legal Principles Covered

1. Definition of “Public Servant” under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
   Section 2(c) of the PCA explicitly includes:
   • Judges of High Courts and Supreme Court under the category of public servants.
     Therefore, a Judge is a public servant for the purposes of the Act.
2. Article 217 and Article 124 of the Constitution
   Judges of the High Courts and Supreme Court hold office under the Constitution and not under executive authority.
   However, this does not exempt them from criminal law.
3. Independence of Judiciary vs. Criminal Accountability
   Judicial independence prevents the Executive from interfering in judicial functioning, but does not shield judges from criminal liability.
4. Case Law Reference: K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991)
   The Supreme Court held that:
   • A Judge of the High Court or Supreme Court is a public servant.
   • However, no criminal investigation against a sitting Judge can begin without prior permission of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to safeguard judicial independence and prevent harassment.
5. Removal of Judges – Article 124(4) and Article 217
   A sitting judge may be removed only by impeachment by Parliament for proved misbehavior or incapacity, but criminal trial is possible after permission from the CJI.

Possible Judgment / Conclusion

The contention of the Judge that he is not a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act is not valid. Judges of the High Court and Supreme Court are clearly covered under Section 2(c) of the PCA.

However, before initiating investigation or prosecution, the permission of the Chief Justice of India is mandatory, as laid down in K. Veeraswami Case. This is required to balance judicial accountability with judicial independence.

Therefore:

• The Judge can be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
• But the police must first obtain approval from the Chief Justice of India.

Once permission is granted, investigation and trial may proceed in accordance with law.

Final Position: The Judge is a Public Servant, and the plea to avoid prosecution is invalid. The case can legally continue subject to procedural authorization.

About lawgnan

Understand the legal and constitutional position of judges as public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Explore the landmark case of K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991), which clarified that judges can face prosecution for corruption, but only with prior permission from the Chief Justice of India to preserve judicial independence. Learn how Articles 124 and 217 govern the appointment and removal of judges, ensuring accountability and integrity in the higher judiciary. Visit Lawgnan.in for detailed legal analysis, case briefs, and simplified insights on judicial ethics and constitutional governance.