A former judge of the Allahabad High Court has approached the Supreme Court of India seeking protection of his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner, while serving as a judge of the Delhi High Court, became the subject of controversy after a fire incident at his official residence led to the discovery of burnt currency notes.
The judge denied any involvement, stating the money must have been planted. However, the incident raised questions about his conduct, prompting the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to initiate the "In-House Procedure" - a system adopted by the Supreme Court in 1999 to examine judicial conduct internally.
Read also:- Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence for Father Under POCSO Act, Awards Rs. 10.5 Lakh Compensation to Victim
A three-member committee was formed, which after conducting inquiries and reviewing witness statements, concluded that the judge's actions warranted removal from office. Subsequently, the CJI offered the judge an option to resign or take voluntary retirement, failing which action would be initiated. The judge refused, calling the process unjust and lacking due process, and sought judicial review by filing a writ petition.
Senior Advocate Mr. Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioner, argued that the "In-House Procedure" lacks constitutional backing to recommend a judge’s removal. He challenged two specific paragraphs - 5(b) and 7(ii)-claiming they violate Articles 124, 217, and 218 of the Constitution, which lay down the exclusive procedure for removing a judge through Parliament.
Read also:- Supreme Court Acquits Shail Kumari in 2003 Child Drowning Case Due to Lack of Reliable Evidence
Mr. Sibal emphasized:
"The Constitution allows removal only after a parliamentary process, not through a committee report or advice of the CJI."
He also highlighted that public disclosure of inquiry findings and video evidence on the Supreme Court website tarnished the judge's reputation, violating his right to dignity under Article 21.
The Supreme Court acknowledged the constitutional route for removal but clarified:
"The Chief Justice of India is not merely a forwarding authority but plays a vital role in upholding institutional integrity."
Read also:- Patna High Court Quashes Dismissal Order of Social Welfare Officer Over Flawed Inquiry Process
The bench noted that forwarding the inquiry report to the President or Prime Minister does not influence the Parliament's independent power under Article 124. It distinguished between internal discipline and formal impeachment, asserting that:
"The 'In-House Procedure' is not a replacement for impeachment but serves to maintain ethical standards."
The Court also examined whether the "Judges (Protection) Act, 1985" shielded the petitioner. It concluded that internal inquiries under the In-House Procedure were valid under the Act’s Section 3(2), which allows authorities like the Supreme Court to act against misconduct.
Case Title: XXX vs. Union of India & Others
Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 699 of 2025