In-House Mechanism

Introduction

The Indian judiciary is a guardian of the Constitution and has one of the highest ethical standards. However, instances of judicial misconduct from financial impropriety to sexual harassment have showed the importance of having an internal accountability mechanism. The in-house enquiry procedure was developed to address such issues without immediately resorting to impeachment, which is a lengthy and politically charged process.

Historical Background & Evolution

1. The Need for an In-House Mechanism

Before 1995, the only constitutional remedy against judicial misconduct was impeachment under Article 124(4). However, impeachment was seen as too extreme for minor ethical violations, creating a gap in judicial accountability.

2. The Landmark Case:

C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee (1995) 5 SCC 457

Allegations of financial misconduct against Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee, then Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. The Supreme Court’s Observed that the Court noted a "hiatus between bad behaviour and impeachable misbehaviour", meaning many unethical acts did not meet the threshold for impeachment. The Supreme Court recommended an internal mechanism to handle judicial misconduct without parliamentary intervention.

3. Formation of the Committee (1997)

A five-member committee was formed to draft the in-house procedure:

• Justice S.C. Agarwal (Supreme Court)

• Justice A.S. Anand (Supreme Court)

• Justice S.P. Bharucha (Supreme Court)

• Justice P.S. Mishra (Former Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court)

• Justice D.P. Mohapatra (Chief Justice of Allahabad  High Court and Supreme Court Judge )

The committee submitted its report in October 1997, which was adopted by the Supreme Court in December 1999, formalizing the in-house enquiry process.

4. Major Reforms in 2014

The case of Additional District Judge 'X' v. Registrar General, MP HC (2014) Writ petition [Civil] No. 792 of 2014 —where a woman judge accused a High Court judge of sexual harassment—led to Justices J.S. Khehar and Arun Mishra restructured the procedure into a seven-step framework for greater transparency.

Step-by-Step In-House Enquiry Procedure

Step 1: Filing a Complaint

A complaint can be submitted to:

Chief Justice of India (CJI)

Chief Justice of the concerned High Court

President of India (who forwards it to the CJI)

Step 2: Preliminary Assessment by the CJI

The CJI examines whether the complaint has substance. If frivolous, the complaint is dropped and If serious, the CJI may seek a preliminary report from the concerned High Court Chief Justice.

Step 3: Formation of Inquiry Committee

If the preliminary report suggests misconduct, the CJI forms a three-member committee:

• Two Chief Justices of High Courts

• One High Court Judge

Step 4: Conduct of Inquiry

The committee follows principles of natural justice:

The accused judge gets a fair hearing. Then the committee can summon evidence and witnesses. The procedure is confidential to protect the judiciary’s dignity.

Step 5: Submission of Report

The committee submits a detailed report to the CJI, stating:

• Whether allegations are proven.

• Whether misconduct is serious enough for removal.

Step 6: CJI’s Decision on Minor Misconduct

If misconduct is not severe, the CJI may:

• Issue an advisory/warning to the judge.

• Record the findings for future reference.

Step 7: Action in Case of Serious Misconduct

If misconduct warrants removal, the CJI:

• Advises the judge to resign or retire voluntarily.

• If the judge refuses, the CJI stops assigning judicial work to them.

• Recommends impeachment proceedings to the President and Prime Minister.

  By Nischal Srinivasan & Kisna Chaudhary