📰 Why in News?

• An in-house inquiry committee was formed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to investigate a fire incident at the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma, a judge of the Delhi High Court.
• The fire occurred between March 14–15, and during the investigation, cash was discovered in a gutted storeroom at the judge's residence.
• This led to the activation of the internal judicial accountability mechanism known as the In-House Inquiry.

🧾 What is an In-House Inquiry?

Background and Origin

• Introduced in 1999 by the Supreme Court to address cases of judicial misconduct not grave enough to require impeachment.
• Originated following the landmark case:
  🧑‍⚖️ C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee (1995)
• A five-member committee was constituted in 1997, and its recommendations were formally adopted by the judiciary in 1999.

Legal Validation

• The procedure was legally validated in:
  📄 Additional District and Sessions Judge ‘X’ vs Registrar General, Madhya Pradesh High Court (2014)
• The judgment clarified the internal disciplinary procedures applicable to judges.

Procedure

• A complaint can be submitted to the CJI, any High Court Chief Justice, or even the President of India.
• The complaint need not originate from Parliament.
• If found credible, the CJI may order a preliminary inquiry by the concerned High Court Chief Justice.
• If further investigation is deemed necessary, a three-member committee is formed, consisting of:
  • Two Chief Justices (usually from different High Courts),
  • One High Court judge.

Inquiry Process and Outcomes

• The accused judge is given a chance to respond, respecting natural justice.
• The committee submits a confidential report to the CJI outlining:
  • Whether the allegations are substantiated.
  • Whether the charges warrant removal.

Possible Outcomes:

• ❌ No action, if allegations are unproven.
• ⚠️ Warning or advisory, if minor misconduct is found.
• 🛑 Request for resignation or retirement, if serious misconduct is established.
• 🧾 If the judge refuses to step down, they may be relieved of judicial duties and impeachment may be recommended by the CJI.

🏛️ What is Judicial Impeachment?

About the Process

• The term “impeachment” (though not explicitly used in the Constitution) refers to the constitutional process of removing judges for misconduct or incapacity.
• Governed by:
  • Article 124(4): Removal of Supreme Court judges.
  • Article 218: Applies the same procedure to High Court judges.

Grounds for Removal

• Proved Misbehaviour: Serious violations of ethics, integrity, or judicial standards.
• Incapacity: Inability to discharge judicial functions due to mental or physical infirmity.

⚙️ Steps in the Impeachment Process

Initiation of Motion

• Requires support of at least 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members.
• Submitted to: The Speaker (Lok Sabha) or Chairman (Rajya Sabha).
• The presiding officer may scrutinize the material, consult legal experts, and admit or reject the motion.
• 📝 Example: In 2018, a motion to impeach then CJI Dipak Misra was rejected by the Rajya Sabha Chairman.

Formation of Inquiry Committee

• If the motion is admitted, a three-member inquiry committee is set up, comprising:
  • The CJI or a Supreme Court judge,
  • The Chief Justice of a High Court,
  • A distinguished jurist.

Investigation

• The committee investigates the charges, gathers evidence, and examines witnesses.
• A detailed report is submitted to the Speaker/Chairman.

Parliamentary Debate and Voting

• If the judge is found guilty, both Houses of Parliament must pass the motion with a special majority:
  • A majority of the total membership of the House,
  • Two-thirds of the members present and voting.

Final Removal by the President

• Once passed in both Houses, the motion is sent to the President of India, who orders the removal of the judge in the same session.

🧩 Conclusion

Both in-house inquiry and impeachment are vital pillars of judicial accountability in India. While the former allows for internal correction and swift action, the latter is a constitutional safeguard to remove judges who seriously breach public trust. Together, they ensure a judiciary that is both independent and accountable, reinforcing public faith in the rule of law.