Xxx v. The Union of India
Background
The petitioner, a sitting High Court Judge (identity anonymised as "XXX" in the judgment), was implicated after burnt currency notes were discovered in a store-room of his official residence following a fire. The Chief Justice of India set the "In-House Procedure" (an internal, non-statutory mechanism adopted by the Full Court in 1999) into motion, constituting a three-member committee that found the misconduct serious enough to warrant removal proceedings. The judge was asked to resign or seek voluntary retirement, but declined; the CJI then forwarded the committee's report and the judge's response to the President and Prime Minister for possible removal proceedings, and photographs/video of the discovery were placed in the public domain. The judge filed a writ petition arguing that only Parliament, acting under Articles 124/217/218 read with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, could examine a judge's conduct for removal, and that the In-House Procedure's provisions allowing the Committee/CJI to opine on "removal-worthy" misconduct were unconstitutional.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court traced the constitutional scheme for removing judges (only by Parliamentary impeachment for "proved misbehaviour or incapacity") and the parallel, judge-made "In-House Procedure" that has existed since the 1990s as a self-regulatory mechanism to protect institutional integrity short of formal impeachment. It held that the In-House Procedure does not itself remove a judge. It is a fact-finding, confidential process whose report can only inform the CJI's own advice/intimation to the President and Prime Minister, and does not usurp Parliament's exclusive constitutional power to remove a judge; hence it is not a parallel or extra-constitutional removal mechanism and does not violate Articles 14, 21, or 124. The Court found nothing improper in the CJI's actions except the uploading of photographs/video footage of the incident onto the Supreme Court's website, which it held was not a required or approved part of the Procedure and should not have happened, though the petitioner had not objected to it at the time and no relief was claimed on that point. The writ petition was dismissed in its entirety.
Lesson Learnt
The judiciary's internal "In-House Procedure" for probing judicial misconduct is a valid, constitutionally-compatible self-regulation tool distinct from the Parliamentary impeachment process. It can trigger a recommendation for removal proceedings without itself violating a judge's fundamental rights, though sensitive material from such confidential inquiries should not be made public.