In-house inquiry procedure for judges

Context: The Supreme Court is set to hear a petition filed on behalf of Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court, challenging the in-house inquiry procedure and former Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna’s recommendation for his removal. 

Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai will form a Bench but will not be part of it due to prior involvement in consultations.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal emphasized that the petition raises significant constitutional issues, arguing that the in-house inquiry is an extra-constitutional mechanism that bypasses Parliament's exclusive authority under Articles 124 and 218 and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

The petition contends that only Parliament, via due process and special majority, can remove a judge, and the in-house process lacks constitutional and legal safeguards such as formal charges and cross-examination.

In-House Procedure for Judges :

The in-house procedure is an internal mechanism developed by the Supreme Court in 1999 (made public in 2014) to examine complaints of misbehaviour against judges of higher judiciary.

Process:

1. Complaint Received – The Chief Justice of India (CJI) assesses if it is frivolous or needs inquiry.

2. Preliminary Inputs – Includes response from the concerned judge and views of the Chief Justice of the relevant High Court.

3. Inquiry Committee Formation:

   • For High Court judges: 2 Chief Justices of other HCs + 1 HC judge.

   • For HC Chief Justices: 1 SC judge + 2 HC Chief Justices.

   • For SC judges: 3 SC judges.

4. Post-Inquiry Recommendation:

   • If misconduct is minor, the judge is informed.

   • If serious, the judge is asked to resign.

   • If refused, report is sent to the President and Prime Minister for possible Parliamentary impeachment under the Constitution.