Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 1162
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
XXX – Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 699 of 2025
Decided On : 07-08-2025
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv. Ms. Stuti Gujral, Adv. Ms. Manisha Singh, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Niti, AOR Mr. George Pothan Poothicote, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Singh, Adv. Mr. Anurag Jain, Adv. Mr. Keshav Saigal, Adv. Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, Adv. Mr. Prakarsh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Tasnimul Hassan, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Misconduct by Judge of High Court – Process for impeachment of a Judge is very rigid at all levels – “In-house Procedure” which has been developed by Full Court of Supreme Court through an administrative resolution, serves as an internal mechanism to deal with complaints of misconduct or incapacity against sitting Judges, both of High Courts and Supreme Court.
(2) Path of probity also can never be abandoned by a Judge.
(3) President is an outsider to Judiciary.
Headnote:
(A) Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 – Section 3 – Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 – Section 3 – Constitution of India – Articles 217 and 218 read with Article 124 – Misconduct by Judge of High Court – Recovery of burnt currency notes from residence of petitioner while Petitioner was a Judge of Delhi High Court – Process for impeachment of a Judge is very rigid at all levels – “In-house Procedure” [PROCEDURE] which has been developed by Full Court of Supreme Court through an administrative resolution, serves as an internal mechanism to deal with complaints of misconduct or incapacity against sitting Judges, both of High Courts and Supreme Court – PROCEDURE contemplates withdrawal of judicial work of Judge under probe – While forwarding report of inquiry to President/Prime Minister, CJI does so for indicating why judicial work is not assigned to the Judge, not as to why he should be impeached/removed – Withdrawing judicial work from a Judge is an extreme measure and has to be based on sound reasons – CJI is not a mere post office between COMMITTEE [Three-member Committee constituted by CJI] and President/Prime Minister that REPORT [Inquiry Report] is to be forwarded without any remarks/recommendation – CJI is an important person in larger scheme of maintaining institutional interest and credibility to ascertain whether a Judge has indulged in misconduct – President is not only not an outsider to Judiciary but also not an outsider to PROCEDURE itself. (Paras 32, 41, 63 and 66)
(B) Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 – Section 3 – Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 – Section 3 – Constitution of India – Articles 217 and 218 read with Article 124 – Misconduct by Judge of High Court – Recovery of burnt currency notes from residence of petitioner while Petitioner was a Judge of Delhi High Court – Protection Act does not offend constitutional scheme present and, being in addition to extant provisions, does not affect Supreme Court’s authority to take such action, as deemed fit, against a Judge of a High Court who is alleged to have indulged in misconduct in terms of PROCEDURE – CJI’s discretion as to whether, where and when to act, mindful of substance in complaints received, would be a regulated discretion; but, once ball is set rolling by CJI, it must end with his recommendation/advice to President and Prime Minister depending on what the Committee records as its findings – Frivolous complaints being lodged by disgruntled litigants, lawyers and others, though cannot be avoided, path of probity also can never be abandoned by a Judge – PROCEDURE acts as a check on Judges’ unbridled freedom of action and thereby seeks to prevent outcomes that could be harmful or unjust – Under present set-up, impeaching PROCEDURE or any part thereof may itself be viewed as unreasonable and unjustified – It is not the law that once Committee constituted by CJI records in its report that conduct of Judge under probe warrants initiation of proceedings for his removal and CJI, in turn, upon accepting such report furnishes the same together with his recommendation to President and Prime Minister, that would invariably in all cases result in initiation of proceedings under Article 124(4) and (5) of Constitution (for Supreme Court Judges) and Articles 217 and 218 read with Article 124 (for High Court Judges) and inquiry under Inquiry Act – Notwithstanding that recommendation of CJI carries much weight, one has to realize that intimation given by CJI, under PROCEDURE, is for eyes of President and Prime Minister alone and not anyone else – CJI has scrupulously followed PROCEDURE which does not envisage a hearing to be given to Judge under probe after he has expressed his inability to resign or voluntarily retire – Writ Petition dismissed. (Paras 82, 83, 84, 85, 116, 124, 126 and 127)
Facts of the case:
A deeply anguished Judge of Allahabad High Court [Petitioner] has petitioned this Court for enforcement of his Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India by invoking his Fundamental Right to constitutional remedy guaranteed by Article 32 thereof.
Findings of Court:
If a complaint of misconduct committed by a Judge is received and if at an inquiry conducted under PROCEDURE allegations against such a Judge are found to have sufficient substance, he cannot claim any immunity - either by citing abrogation of his Fundamental Rights or breach of constitutional scheme for removal of a Judge by initiating proceedings for impeachment - that his conduct is not open to be commented upon by Committee or even by the CJI.
Result : Writ Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
PREFACE
1. A deeply anguished Judge of the Allahabad High Court 1 [Petitioner] has petitioned this Court for enforcement of his Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India by invoking his Fundamental Right to constitutional remedy guaranteed by Article 32 thereof.
2. Lest any observation made by us denies the petitioner a level playing field in any future proceedings that he might face, we would tread the path cautiously and refer to, very briefly, only the bare facts leading to presentation of this writ petition as well as deal with only such of the several contentions, as urged, to the extent the same are absolutely necessary for our decision.
FACTS
3. Petitioner finds himself in an unsavoury situation. While the Petitioner was a Judge of the Delhi High Court, there was an incident of fire at a store-room in the bungalow premises allotted to him. On the date of the incident, the Petitioner was away from home. In the process of dousing the fire, certain burnt currency notes were discovered in the store-room. Such discovery gave rise to suspicion that the Petitioner may not have followed the universally accepted values of judicial life including those included in the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life dated 31st October, 1997; consequently, his conduct fell for scrutiny. Without wasting time, the “In-house Procedure” devised by the Supreme Court in its Full Court meeting dated 15th December, 19992 [PROCEDURE] was set in motion. The Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court3 [CJ, DHC] vide letter dated 21st March, 2025 sought a response from the Petitioner. In his response dated 22nd March, 2025, the Petitioner’s defence, inter alia, was that no cash was ever placed in the store-room by him or his family members and he strongly denounced the suggestion that the cash belonged to him or his family members. Petitioner also stated that the same must have been planted in the store-room to frame him. However, the Petitioner neither denied the incident of fire nor discovery of the burnt currency notes. Upon receipt of the response, the same was considered. Inter alia, on 22nd March, 2025, a three-member Committee4 [COMMITTEE] was constituted by the Chief Justice of India5 [CJI]. A press release of even date named the members of the COMMITTEE, and also disclosed that the CJ, DHC was asked not to assign judicial work to the Petitioner. At or about the same time, presumably on the orders of the CJI, certain documents/photographs/video footage linked to the fire incident and discovery of currency notes had been placed in the public domain. On 24th March, 2025, the Collegium of the Supreme Court recommended the Petitioner’s repatriation to his parent High Court. Immediately thereafter, the COMMITTEE set out to accomplish the task assigned to it. The fire ravaged store- room was inspected. Versions of several witnesses having some knowledge of and/or relation with the incident of fire/discovery of burnt currency notes were recorded by the COMMITTEE. Petitioner was furnished the versions of the witnesses. Thereafter, he was afforded an opportunity to state his case. An inquiry report6 [REPORT] dated 3rd May, 2025 of the COMMITTEE followed. On the basis of appreciation of the materials collected in course of the inquiry, the COMMITTEE recorded in the REPORT of having found sufficient substance in the allegations raised in the letter dated 22nd March, 2025 of the CJI. It was recorded by the COMMITTEE that misconduct found proved is serious enough to call for initiation of proceedings for removal of the Petitioner from his office. Vide letter dated 4th May, 2025, the CJI gave the Petitioner the option to resign or to seek voluntary retirement within 6th May, 2025, failing which the competent authorities would be intimated to initiate action for removal. Petitioner responded on 6th May, 2025 seeking reconsideration of the letter dated 4th May, 2025 and more time to submit a written representatio
