The importance of in-house mechanisms for clean judiciary

Context:

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra has decided to recommend the removal of Allahabad High Court judge Justice S N Shukla as part of an in-house procedure after he was found guilty of misconduct by an internal probe into a medical college admission scam.

Introduction:

• Justice Misra is reported to have written to the President and the Prime Minister after three judges inquiry committee adversely commented on the conduct of Justice Shukla in a medical college scam.
• The entire exercise of probe by the three judges and the CJI writing to the President and the Prime Minister is under the “in house procedure“.
• The panel comprised Chief Justice of the Madras High Court Justice Indira Banerjee, Sikkim High Court Chief Justice S.K. Agnihotri and Justice P.K. Jaiswal of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
• After the probe panel held Justice Shukla of committing gross judicial misconduct, the only course available is either he quit on his own or the government initiates impeachment proceedings against him under the Judges (Inquiry) Act 1986. 
• He would be the fourth judge to face impeachment proceedings in the last 25 years with none succeeding so far.
• Other judges against whom impeachment proceedings were initiated were top court judge V. Ramaswami in 1993 and Justices P.D. Dinakaran and Soumitra Sen in 2011.

What was the issue?

• Justice Shri Narayan Shukla had come under adverse notice before a Supreme Court Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra last year.
• The judge of the Allahabad High Court was in news for committing judicial impropriety and spreading corruption in the higher judiciary.
• The case is related to a Lucknow-based private medical college being probed by the CBI.
• The agency on September 20 arrested retired Orissa High Court judge Ishrat Masroor Quddusi and five others, including the chairman of the college, on the charge of corruption to get a favourable order to admit students.
• The Bench had found he had violated a restraining order from the apex court by allowing the GCRG Memorial Trust, Lucknow, to admit students.
• The entire controversy triggered a storm after the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) moved the top court seeking probe by a special investigation team into allegations of corruption.
• The CJI formed a three-member committee, comprising Chief Justices Indira Banerjee of the Madras High Court and S.K. Agnihotri of the Sikkim High Court and Justice P.K. Jaiswal of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, to examine his conduct.
• The committee has now found substance in the allegations and that the judge had deviated from the “values of judicial life”.
• Justice Shukla has not tendered his resignation or sought retirement, the options available to him to avoid the ignominy of impeachment in Parliament.
• His position has paved the way for the CJI to recommend his removal.
• The allegations against him appear to correspond to the claims in a first information report registered by the CBI against another medical college trust and alleged middlemen, including a retired judge of the Orissa High Court.

What is “in-house procedure”?

• The in-house procedure, crystallised in a 1995 Supreme Court judgment in the C. Ravichandran Iyer case.
• The procedure was developed in 1999 in order to deal with allegations of misdemeanor against Judges, including accusations of sexual harassment against Judges of Supreme Courts.
• Under the In-house procedure, when a complaint is received against a Judge of the High Court, by the Chief Justice of the High Court, he shall first examine it himself. If it is found by him that it is frivolous or directly related to the merits of a substantive decision in a judicial matter or does not involve any serious complaint of misconduct or impropriety, he shall file the complaint and inform the CJI accordingly
• Under the procedure if the panel holds the delinquent judge guilty of misconduct, the CJI will advise the judge concerned to resign or seek voluntary retirement.
• In case the judge expresses unwillingness to resign or seek voluntary retirement, the chief justice of the concerned high court should be advised by the CJI not to allocate any judicial work to the judge concerned.

How this case is related to “in-house procedure”?

• Since Justice Shukla has not resigned as yet, as per the in-house mechanism, the CJI is bound to write to the President and the Prime Minister for initiation of proceedings to remove the judge by way of an impeachment motion.
• When the CJI writes to the President and Prime Minister for removal of a high court judge, the Rajya Sabha chairperson appoints a three-judge inquiry committee in consultation with the CJI under the provisions of the Judges (Enquiry) Act, 1968 to look into the allegations.

Importance of “in-house procedure” for  clean judiciary:

• It helps in judge’s accountability.
• It will serve as a safeguard for the members of the higher judiciary from being maligned or being subjected to vilification by false and frivolous.
• It helps in investigation into complaints against sitting high court judges.
• It will bring transparency and fairness in judicial decisions.
• Its own procedure consistent with the principles of natural justice.
• The adoption of the In-House Procedure would enable a complaint against a Judge being dealt with at the appropriate level within the institution.
• Such a procedure would serve a dual purpose.
• In the first place, the allegations against a Judge would be examined by his peers and not by an outside agency and thereby the independence of the judiciary would be maintained.
• The awareness that there exists a machinery for examination of complaints against a Judge would preserve the faith of the people in the independence and impartiality of the judicial process.

Why the judiciary needs a revamp?

• Judicial Corruption exists because public trials are almost never heard by the public.
• Lack of accountability breeds corruption.
• Judicial accountability is as important as accountability of the executive or legislature.
• Judicial accountability promotes at least three discrete values: the rule of law, public confidence in the judiciary, and institutional responsibility.
• The regular evaluation of judicial performance is a springboard for ensuring greater judicial accountability, but unfortunately India do not have any institutional mechanism yet to do this.
• Judges become corrupt when they enjoy absolute power and their strong personal agendas dominates over merit of the case.
• Corruption in lower courts: India’s judicial corruption is a cancer that begins at the lower levels and inches its way up.
• According to the Global Corruption Report 2007, the perception of corruption is higher in India and Pakistan in comparison to Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand.In Pakistan, 55 per cent of the respondents said the judiciary was corrupt.
• A Transparency International report released in 2007 showed that 77 % per cent of respondents in a survey in India believe the judiciary is corrupt.

Way ahead:

• In view of the importance of the in-house procedure, it is essential to bring it into public domain.
• The Registry of the Supreme Court of India is accordingly directed, to place the same on the official website of the Supreme Court of India.

Conclusion:

It is definitely a welcome direction in the interests of transparency and fairness. Citizens are entitled to know what is the procedure being followed to conduct inquiry and/or to take suitable remedial action as and when some serious allegations are made against a judge of the High Court or of the Supreme Court. This direction to introduce some amount of transparency will definitely help the cause of justice and further strengthen the judiciary.