From Complaint to Consequence: The In-House Judicial Inquiry Process

1. Justice Yashwant Varma (Delhi High Court) is under investigation after wads of cash were reportedly found at his official residence following a fire on March 14, 2024.
2. CJI Sanjiv Khanna has initiated a three-member in-house inquiry — a first of its kind in such circumstances.

 

Removal of a Judge – Constitutional Provision
 

Provision	Details
Article 124(4)	A judge can be removed for “proved misbehaviour” or “incapacity” by impeachment through Parliament.
Voting Requirement	Needs support from two-thirds of members present and voting in both Houses, and a majority of the total membership of each House.
Final Authority	After the motion passes, the President of India issues an order for removal.

 

In-House Mechanism (Not Impeachment)
 

Why It Was Created
 

1. 1. Introduced in 1997, after allegations against Bombay HC Chief Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee.
   2. SC observed a gap between bad conduct and impeachable misconduct.
   3. Led to a five-member SC committee framing guidelines for internal judicial discipline.
       

In-House Inquiry Against Judges: Step-by-Step Process
 

Step 1: Receipt of Complaint
 

1. A complaint against a judge can be received by:

• The Chief Justice of India (CJI), or
• The Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, or
• The President of India

2. This complaint may involve allegations of misconduct not rising to the level of impeachment.

 

Step 2: Preliminary Scrutiny by CJI
 

1. The CJI examines the complaint to assess its seriousness.
2. If found not serious, the complaint may be dropped at this stage.
3. If needed, the CJI seeks a preliminary report from the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court.

 

Step 3: Recommendation for Deeper Probe
 

If the preliminary report suggests a deeper inquiry, the CJI may:

1. Review the report and the judge’s response, and
2. Decide whether to constitute a formal in-house inquiry committee.
    

Step 4: Formation of Three-Member Committee
 

1. If warranted, the CJI appoints a three-member committee:
   1. Two Chief Justices of High Courts
   2. One senior High Court judge
2. The committee follows procedures consistent with natural justice (e.g., giving the judge a chance to respond).

 

Principle of Natural justice The Principle of Natural Justice is a foundational concept in law that ensures fairness, equity, and due process in administrative and judicial proceedings. It is not codified in a specific statute but is universally recognized and upheld by courts to protect individual rights. Principles of Natural Justice There are three core principles: Nemo judex in causa sua – No one should be a judge in their own cause  This ensures impartiality. A person cannot decide a case where they have a personal interest or bias. Audi alteram partem – Hear the other side  Everyone must be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before a decision affecting their rights is made. This includes: Notice of the case against them Access to evidence Right to present their case Reasoned Decision (Speaking Order) – Decision must be reasoned and based on evidence The authority must give reasons for its decisions, so that: The party knows why a decision was made A higher authority (like a court) can review the decision if needed        Application of Natural Justice In administrative law (disciplinary actions, licenses, service matters) In judicial/quasi-judicial bodies (tribunals, commissions) Not rigidly applied in legislative or policy decisions (like passing laws)

 

Step 5: Inquiry and Submission of Report

 

1. The committee conducts the inquiry and submits a report to the CJI.
2. The report must state:
   1. Whether the allegations are substantiated.
   2. Whether the misconduct is serious enough to warrant removal proceedings.
       

 

Step 6: Action Based on Report

1. If not serious, the CJI may:

1. Issue advice or warning to the judge,
2. Place the report on official record.

2. If serious misconduct is found:

1. CJI advises the judge to resign or retire.
2. If the judge refuses, the CJI directs the HC to stop assigning judicial work to the judge.
    

Step 7: Referral for Impeachment (if needed)

If the judge refuses to resign, the CJI:

1. Sends the report to the President and Prime Minister,
2. Recommends initiation of removal (impeachment) proceedings under Article 124(4).
    

Revisiting the Procedure – 2014 Case
 

1. Triggered by a sexual harassment complaint by a Madhya Pradesh ADJ against a sitting HC judge.
2. SC bench led by Justice J.S. Khehar clarified the seven-step process now in use.

Significance

1. In-house inquiry is an internal disciplinary process, distinct from impeachment.
2. Maintains judicial independence while ensuring accountability.
3. Ensures due process through natural justice and peer review.