Context: Recently, the Vice President of India has criticised the in-house inquiry as having “no legal sanctity” and called for reviewing the Veeraswami judgment, terming it a “scaffolding of impunity”.
Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: In-house inquiry, Veeraswami judgment in the light of Judicial independence and accountability.
Constitution Safeguard for Judges:
It is fundamental to the independence of the judiciary that judges should be able to decide cases without fear of personal consequences, including criminal prosecution.
- The only procedure prescribed in the Constitution is the removal of a judge through impeachment.
- Article 124: Removal of a Supreme Court (SC) judge.
- Article 218: Removal of a High Court (HC) judge.
- The judge can only be removed by Parliament on two grounds:
- Proven misbehavior or incapacity.
- Proven misbehavior and incapacity are not defined in the Constitution.
- The impeachment process requires a motion to be passed in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha with at least two-thirds of those present and voting, in such a way that it is more than 50% of the total membership of each House, i.e., special majority. If the Parliament approves, the President issues the final removal order. However, no SC Judge has been impeached so far.
Looking for alternative mechanisms to deal with complaints against judges, the SC developed the mechanism of the in-house inquiry.
What is an In-house Inquiry?
- The Chief Justice of India (CJI) sets up a panel of judges to verify if there is a prima facie case against a judge.
- The report is sent to the CJI, who may forward it to the President or executive.
- If the judge is found guilty of misconduct, the panel can recommend voluntary resignation, withdrawal of judicial work and initiation of impeachment proceedings.
- It is not a legal or statutory proceeding, it is an internal fact-finding process. It cannot lead directly to an FIR or prosecution.
- The CJI himself has limited powers to deal with errant judges beyond transferring or withdrawing work from the judge.
Read More: Removal process of a Judge of High Court
Veeraswami Case (1991): When can a sitting judge face an FIR?
- In the Veeraswami case, Justice K. Veeraswami, former Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, was accused of possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.
- The central legal question was whether a sitting judge could be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and if so, who had the authority to sanction such prosecution.
- The SC held that:
- A sitting judge of a High Court or the Supreme Court can be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, but only with prior sanction from the Chief Justice of India.
- While a judge can be considered a public servant for a corruption case to be registered against him, the sanction must come from the CJI.
- Ordinarily, sanction is granted by the authority that has the power to appoint the public servant. But the SC emphasised that there is no master and servant relationship or employer and employee relationship between a Judge and the President of India.
- The judgment aims to maintain a balance between Judicial independence and judicial accountability.
In 2019, for the first time, then CJI Ranjan Gogoi gave permission to the CBI to register an FIR against Justice S N Shukla of the Allahabad High Court for alleged favours to a private medical college for MBBS admissions.