Judicial misconduct needs transparent and accountable investigation

Source: The post Judicial misconduct needs transparent and accountable investigation has been created, based on the article “How is an in-house inquiry conducted?” published in “The Hindu” on 26 March 2025. Judicial misconduct needs transparent and accountable investigation.

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper2- Governance-Appointment to various Constitutional posts, powers, functions and responsibilities of various Constitutional Bodies.

Context: A fire at the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court on March 14 led to the discovery of large piles of burnt cash. This incident triggered a preliminary inquiry, which led the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to initiate a deeper investigation through an in-house procedure.

In-house procedure for probing judges

1. Purpose and Background: The in-house procedure was developed by the Supreme Court in 1999 to handle complaints of misconduct against higher judiciary judges. It was made public in 2014.
2. Initial Scrutiny by CJI: When a complaint is received, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) decides whether it is frivolous or serious. If it is serious, the judge’s response and the view of the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court are taken.
3. Constitution of Inquiry Committee: If a deeper probe is needed, the CJI forms a three-member committee:
   • For a High Court judge: two Chief Justices of other High Courts and one High Court judge.
   • For a Chief Justice of a High Court: one Supreme Court judge and two Chief Justices of other High Courts.
   • For a Supreme Court judge: three Supreme Court judges.
4. Inquiry Process: The committee reviews the facts and gives a recommendation.
   • If misconduct is not serious: the judge is informed.
   • If serious: the judge is asked to resign. If the judge refuses, the report is sent to the President and Prime Minister for removal through Parliament under the Constitution.

Concerns with the collegium system of judge appointments

1. The collegium system protects judicial independence but lacks transparency and accountability.
2. It is opaque and does not involve wider public or institutional participation.
3. This lack of openness may allow misconduct to go unnoticed, as seen in the Justice Yashwant Varma case.
4. The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was struck down in 2015 for violating the basic structure of judicial independence.
5. There is need to revisit the NJAC with a broad-based structure headed by the CJI and including members from the legislature, lawyer associations, and academia.
6. This can improve transparency without compromising independence, like South Africa’s Judicial Service Commission.

Reforms needed in this process

1. Lack of Transparency: The in-house inquiry findings are confidential, reducing public trust in the judicial system.
2. No Accountability: Despite being found guilty of misconduct, no judge has faced criminal punishment, undermining the effectiveness of the in-house procedure.
3. Example of Better Practice: The UK has a transparent system through its Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. India should create a similar independent body under the CJI. This will ensure both accountability and independence in handling judicial misconduct, unlike the current process which lacks public disclosure and legal consequences.

Question for practice:

Examine the limitations of the in-house procedure for probing judicial misconduct in India and suggest reforms to enhance transparency and accountability.