In a significant ruling (2025 INSC 943), the Supreme Court of India dismissed a writ petition filed by a judge of the Allahabad High Court, upholding the “In-house Procedure” for addressing judicial misconduct. The judge had challenged the constitutionality of certain paragraphs of the procedure after a committee, constituted by the Chief Justice of India (CJI), found sufficient substance in misconduct allegations against him and the CJI forwarded the report to the President and Prime Minister.
Background
The petitioner, while a judge of the Delhi High Court, faced scrutiny after burnt currency notes were discovered in a storeroom at his official residence following a fire. The CJI initiated the “In-house Procedure,” leading to the formation of a three-member committee. The committee’s report concluded the allegations were serious enough to warrant removal proceedings. The CJI then gave the judge the option to resign or retire, which he declined, and subsequently forwarded the report to the President and Prime Minister.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Kapil Sibal, argued that:
- The “In-house Procedure” is unconstitutional and ultra vires Articles 124 and 218 of the Constitution, which outline the sole method for a judge’s removal via impeachment.
- The committee’s and the CJI’s authority to recommend removal proceedings lacks constitutional sanction, as the removal process is the exclusive domain of Parliament.
- The procedure is arbitrary and violates Article 14 by denying the judge safeguards available under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, such as cross-examination of witnesses.
- The public release of photographs and video footage related to the incident and the committee’s report effectively convicted the judge before any formal inquiry, infringing his right to a good reputation under Article 21.
- The recommendation from a high constitutional functionary like the CJI would unduly influence Parliament and act as a “virtual death knell” for the judge.
The Court’s Ruling
The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih upheld the “In-house Procedure,” making the following key observations:
Legal Sanction and Constitutionality
The court held that the “In-house Procedure” is not an extra-constitutional mechanism but a valid, self-regulatory tool with legal sanction. It cited previous rulings, including C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee and Additional District and Sessions Judge ‘X’ v. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which established the procedure to fill a “yawning gap” in the constitutional scheme for disciplining judges for conduct that falls short of impeachable misbehavior. The court noted that this procedure, initially seen as based on moral and ethical authority, has evolved into a legally sanctioned mechanism under Article 141 of the Constitution.
The Role of the CJI
The court affirmed the CJI’s authority to not just forward the inquiry report but also to provide his views and recommendations to the President and Prime Minister. The court reasoned that the CJI is not a “mere post office” but a crucial figure in upholding institutional integrity. It clarified that this action is to intimate why judicial work has been withdrawn from the judge, not to initiate impeachment proceedings directly. Furthermore, the court stated that the CJI’s recommendation, while carrying weight, does not bind Parliament, whose power to initiate removal proceedings remains unfettered.
Nature of the Inquiry
The court distinguished the in-house inquiry from a formal, guilt-finding process, characterizing it as a preliminary fact-finding exercise. It reiterated that the inquiry’s report is confidential, preliminary, and not final, and does not replace the comprehensive investigation mandated by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which Parliament must follow if it decides to proceed with impeachment.
Petitioner’s Conduct
The court heavily criticized the petitioner’s belated challenge to the procedure. It noted that he participated in the inquiry without objection and only filed the writ petition after the outcome was unfavorable. The court also deemed the uploading of evidence on the Supreme Court’s website improper, as the procedure is confidential. However, it concluded this action did not vitiate the inquiry, given the petitioner’s failure to raise a timely objection.
Conclusion
The court rejected all of the petitioner’s contentions, including the argument that the ruling in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India precluded an internal disciplinary mechanism. It concluded that the “In-house Procedure” is a necessary and legal tool for maintaining judicial accountability and institutional integrity, and thus, found no reason to interfere.
The writ petition was dismissed.
