The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the ‘In-House Procedure’ for investigating allegations of judicial misconduct. It ruled that the mechanism, which can recommend a judge’s removal, is a valid exercise of the CJI’s authority under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, and does not violate the constitutional scheme for impeachment.
Facts Of The Case:
In March 2025, a fire broke out in the store-room of a Delhi High Court judge’s official bungalow while he was away. During efforts to douse the flames, officials discovered burnt currency notes on the premises. This discovery raised serious suspicions of misconduct, potentially violating the values outlined in the Restatement of Judicial Life. Consequently, the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court sought an explanation from the judge. The judge denied any knowledge of the cash, suggesting it may have been planted to frame him. Following established protocol, the Chief Justice of India constituted a three-member committee to investigate the incident under the Supreme Court’s 1999 ‘In-House Procedure’. During the inquiry, certain evidence, including photographs and video footage linked to the incident, was made public on the Supreme Court’s website. The committee ultimately found sufficient substance in the allegations and concluded the misconduct was serious enough to warrant initiation of removal proceedings. The CJI then offered the judge the option to resign voluntarily. Upon the judge’s refusal and request for more time, the CJI forwarded the committee’s report to the President and Prime Minister, leading the judge to file a writ petition challenging the procedure itself.
Procedural History:
The procedural history commenced with the initiation of the ‘In-House Procedure’ by the Chief Justice of India on March 22, 2025, following a complaint from the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court. A three-member committee was constituted, which conducted an inquiry, inspected the fire-ravaged premises, recorded witness statements, and provided the judge an opportunity to be heard. The committee submitted its report on May 3, 2025, finding serious misconduct. The CJI then gave the judge an option to resign, which was refused. Consequently, the CJI forwarded the report to the President and Prime Minister on May 8, 2025. Challenging these actions, the judge filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution in the Supreme Court on July 17, 2025, directly leading to the present judgment.
READ ALSO :Promises Must Be Kept: Supreme Court Protects Industry from Unexpected Tariff Hikes by State Board
Court Observation:
In its observations, the Court firmly validated the ‘In-House Procedure’ as a constitutionally permissible and essential mechanism to address judicial misconduct falling short of impeachable offenses. It held that the procedure, rooted in the Supreme Court’s moral and legal authority under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, serves to fill a critical gap in the disciplinary framework for judges. The Court clarified that the inquiry is a preliminary, fact-finding exercise and its report to the Chief Justice of India is confidential. It further ruled that the CJI’s act of forwarding the committee’s findings, along with any recommendation, to the President and Prime Minister is a legitimate function that does not infringe upon Parliament’s exclusive power of removal or violate the principle of separation of powers. The Court also noted that a judge’s participation in the process without initial objection weakened their subsequent challenge.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the constitutional validity of the ‘In-House Procedure’. The Court ruled that the mechanism is a legally sanctioned, preliminary fact-finding inquiry that does not supplant or run parallel to the constitutional process for removal by Parliament. It found that the procedure, including the power of the Chief Justice of India to forward an inquiry report with recommendations to the President and Prime Minister, is a valid exercise of authority intended to preserve institutional integrity and does not violate Articles 14, 21, 124, or 218 of the Constitution. The Court concluded that the petitioner’s challenge was untenable, especially given his participation in the process without demur.
Case Details:
Case Title: XXX vs. The Union of India & Others Citation: 2025 INSC 943 Jurisdiction & Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 699 of 2025 Date of Judgement: August 07, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
Download The Judgement Here