Judiciary's In-House Procedure

The judiciary's in-house procedure is an internal mechanism for examining allegations of misconduct against judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. It uses preliminary scrutiny and peer inquiry to preserve judicial accountability without allowing routine executive control over judges. It is distinct from the constitutional process for removing a judge.

Screening and inquiry

The procedure varies according to the judicial office involved, but the Chief Justice of India has the central coordinating role.

• A complaint against a High Court judge is ordinarily examined initially by the concerned High Court Chief Justice, who may obtain the judge's response and report the matter to the Chief Justice of India.
• If a deeper inquiry is warranted against a High Court judge, a three-member committee comprising one High Court Chief Justice and two High Court judges is constituted.
• For a High Court Chief Justice, the committee comprises one Supreme Court judge and two High Court Chief Justices; for a Supreme Court judge, it comprises three Supreme Court judges.
• A complaint found frivolous or lacking substance is closed, while the inquiry committee reports substantiated allegations to the Chief Justice of India.

Possible outcomes

The response depends on the seriousness of the established conduct and remains an internal institutional measure.

• Where the lapse does not warrant removal, the judge may receive advice or warning and be asked to avoid recurrence.
• Where the conduct is serious enough to warrant removal, the judge may be advised to resign or seek voluntary retirement.
• If the judge refuses, steps may be taken to withhold judicial work and the matter may be communicated to the constitutional authorities for considering the removal process.

Constitutional position and limitations

The in-house mechanism cannot itself remove a judge. Under Article 124(4), a Supreme Court judge may be removed by the President after an address by each House of Parliament supported by the prescribed special majority, on proved misbehaviour or incapacity; Article 217 applies the removal framework to High Court judges.

• The procedure is non-statutory and supplements, rather than replaces, the constitutional removal mechanism.
• Its peer-review character protects judicial independence, but the absence of ordinary coercive and punitive powers limits its capacity to enforce accountability.