Judiciary’s In-House Inquiry Against Delhi High Court Judge

Syllabus: GS2/Judiciary

Context

• Recently, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) initiated an unprecedented three-member in-house inquiry into the conduct of Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma.

About the In-House Inquiry

• Origins and Evolution:
  • The need for an in-house inquiry mechanism arose in 1995 following allegations of financial impropriety against Bombay High Court Chief Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee. 
  • In-House Procedure was formulated by the Supreme Court in 1997 following a case involving allegations against Justice V. Ramaswami, a former SC judge.
  • The process was refined in 2014 after a sexual harassment complaint led to the establishment of a seven-step inquiry framework

Key Features of the In-House Inquiry

• Distinct from Impeachment: Unlike impeachment, which requires Parliamentary approval under Article 124(4) of the Constitution, the in-house inquiry is an internal mechanism aimed at addressing conduct inconsistent with judicial values.
• Formation of Inquiry Committees: Committees typically consist of senior judges from different High Courts to ensure impartiality.
  • For the current case, a three-member committee includes the Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court, and a Justice of Karnataka High Court.
• Transparency: Recent inquiries have demonstrated a commitment to transparency, with reports and evidence made publicly accessible.

Process of In-House Inquiry

• Preliminary Scrutiny: Complaints against judges are first examined by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in the case of SC judges, or by the Chief Justice of the respective High Court for HC judges.
• Formation of a Committee: If a prima facie case is established, a three-judge committee is formed to investigate the allegations.
• Inquiry Proceedings: The committee examines the evidence, questions the accused judge, and determines whether the allegations hold merit.
• Report Submission: The committee submits its findings to the CJI, who then decides on further action.

Possible Outcomes

• If the judge is found guilty of misconduct, the report is sent to the President of India for consideration of removal via Parliamentary impeachment.
• If the misconduct is minor, the judge may be advised to resign voluntarily.
• If the allegations are baseless, the matter is dropped.

Challenges in the In-House Inquiry Process

• Lack of Transparency: The inquiry is conducted behind closed doors, and reports are not made public. It raises concerns about accountability.
• No Binding Authority: Even if misconduct is established, the judiciary cannot directly remove a judge; impeachment by Parliament is required.
• Rare Impeachment: The complex impeachment process makes it nearly impossible to remove judges, as seen in the cases of Justice Ramaswami (1991) and Justice S. N. Shukla (2022).
• Political Influence: The impeachment process can be influenced by political considerations, reducing its effectiveness.
• Delayed Justice: Investigations often take years, diminishing public faith in judicial accountability.

Notable Cases of Judicial Inquiry in India

• Justice V. Ramaswami Case (1991): The first judge to face impeachment proceedings, but Parliament failed to remove him due to political maneuvering.
• Justice Soumitra Sen Case (2011): Found guilty of financial misconduct by an in-house inquiry; the Rajya Sabha passed an impeachment motion, but he resigned before the Lok Sabha could vote.
• Justice S. N. Shukla Case (2022): Accused of favoring private medical colleges; he was found guilty by an in-house inquiry, but impeachment did not follow.

Recommendations for Reform

• Make Inquiry Reports Public: Increasing transparency will enhance public trust.
• Strengthen Judicial Oversight Bodies: The establishment of Judicial Standards and Accountability Commission will be a significant step towards ensuring transparency and accountability in the judiciary.
• Introduce Alternative Disciplinary Mechanisms: Instead of only relying on impeachment, other disciplinary actions like suspensions or fines should be considered.
• Ensure Time-Bound Proceedings: Delays in inquiries should be minimized to prevent judicial misconduct from going unpunished.

Source: IE