Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of In-House Procedure for Judicial Accountability

New Delhi: The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment, has upheld the constitutionality of the "In-house Procedure" (IHP) used to probe allegations of misconduct against judges of the higher judiciary. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih dismissed a writ petition filed by a sitting High Court judge, ruling that the IHP is a legally sanctioned, self-regulatory mechanism and not an unconstitutional parallel process for judicial removal.

The Court held that the IHP, which allows the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to recommend the initiation of removal proceedings to the President and Prime Minister, does not violate the constitutional scheme laid down in Articles 124 and 218.

---

Background of the Case

The petitioner, a High Court Judge, faced scrutiny after burnt currency notes were discovered at his official residence following a fire. This led to the initiation of the Supreme Court's "In-house Procedure." A three-member committee constituted by the CJI found "sufficient substance" in the allegations and concluded that the misconduct was serious enough to warrant removal proceedings.

Subsequently, the CJI, in accordance with the IHP, advised the judge to resign or seek voluntary retirement. Upon the judge's refusal, the CJI informed the President and the Prime Minister of the committee's findings to initiate action for removal. The petitioner's judicial duties were also withdrawn. Aggrieved, the judge approached the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutional validity of the IHP itself.

---

Petitioner's Arguments

Senior Advocate Mr. Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioner, argued that the IHP creates an extra-constitutional mechanism for removal, encroaching upon the exclusive domain of Parliament as outlined in the Constitution and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

Key contentions included:

- Parallel Process: The IHP runs parallel to the formal impeachment process, lacking its constitutional rigour and procedural safeguards like cross-examination.

- Violation of Natural Justice: The procedure is arbitrary and violates Article 14, as a prima facie finding can lead to a recommendation for removal without a full-fledged inquiry.

- Prejudicial Impact: A recommendation from a high constitutional authority like the CJI would heavily influence Parliament, acting as a "virtual death knell" for the judge.

- Lack of Legal Sanction: The authority of the CJI under the IHP is merely "moral or ethical," not legal, and cannot trigger a constitutional process.

- Public Domain Disclosure: Placing evidence like photographs and videos in the public domain tarnished the judge's reputation and violated his right to a fair process under Article 21.

---

Supreme Court's Analysis and Ruling

The Supreme Court rejected the petitioner's contentions, delivering a comprehensive judgment that affirmed the IHP's role in maintaining judicial integrity.

A Mechanism to Fill a "Yawning Gap"

The bench traced the genesis of the IHP to the 1995 Supreme Court decision in ** C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee **, which identified a "yawning gap between proved misbehaviour and bad conduct inconsistent with the high office." The Court observed that the IHP was devised to address misconduct that, while serious, might not rise to the level of "proved misbehaviour" required for impeachment.

> "The PROCEDURE acts as a check on Judges’ unbridled freedom of action and thereby seeks to prevent outcomes that could be harmful or unjust. Under the present set-up, impeaching the PROCEDURE or any part thereof may itself be viewed as unreasonable and unjustified," the bench stated.

Legal Sanction Underpinned by Law

The Court firmly established that the IHP is not merely a moral code but has concrete legal sanction derived from two sources:

1. Article 141 of the Constitution: The ruling in C. Ravichandran Iyer , which laid the foundation for the IHP, constitutes law declared by the Supreme Court and is binding on all.
2. The Judges (Protection) Act, 1985: The Court invoked Section 3(2) of this Act for the first time in this context. It noted that the Act, while protecting judges for their judicial actions, explicitly allows the Supreme Court to take action ("civil, criminal, or departmental proceedings or otherwise") against a judge under any "law for the time being in force." The Court held that the law laid down in C. Ravichandran Iyer and the broad term "otherwise" in the Act encompass the IHP.

IHP is Preliminary, Not a Removal Process

The judgment clarified that the IHP is a preliminary, fact-finding inquiry, not a substitute for the formal impeachment process.

> "The in-house inquiry is not a removal mechanism in the first place, much less an extra-constitutional mechanism. We reiterate that 'a stitch in time saves nine'," the Court observed.

The report of the IHP committee is "preliminary in nature, ad hoc and not final." It does not bind Parliament, which retains the ultimate and unfettered power to initiate or refrain from initiating removal proceedings under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, regardless of the IHP's outcome.

Role of the Chief Justice of India

The Court affirmed the crucial role of the CJI as the head of the judiciary, responsible for maintaining institutional integrity. It held that the CJI is not a "mere post office" and is entitled to give his own views while forwarding the committee's report to the President and the Prime Minister. This communication is a necessary step to explain the "extreme measure" of withdrawing judicial work from a judge.

---

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no grounds for interference. It held that paragraphs 5(b) and 7(ii) of the In-house Procedure are constitutionally valid and do not infringe upon any fundamental rights or the doctrine of separation of powers. The judgment solidifies the IHP as a vital, legally-backed tool for self-regulation and accountability within the Indian judiciary.