in-house procedure

Additional District and Sessions Judge ‘X’ Vs. Registrar General (2015) 4 SCC 91 it is ruled as under; 53. In view of the consideration and the findings recorded hereinabove, we may record our general conclusions as under: (i) The "in-house procedure" framed by this Court, consequent upon the decision rendered in C. Ravichandran Iyer's case (supra) can be adopted, to examine allegations levelled against Judges of High Courts, Chief Justices of High Courts and Judges of the Supreme Court of India. (ii) The investigative process under the "in-house procedure" takes into consideration the rights of the complainant, and that of the concerned judge, by adopting a fair procedure, to determine the veracity of allegations levelled against a sitting Judge. At the same time, it safeguards the integrity of the judicial institution. (iii) Even though the said procedure, should ordinarily be followed in letter and spirit, the Chief Justice of India, would have the authority to mould the same, in the facts and circumstances of a given case, to ensure that the investigative process affords safeguards, against favouritism, prejudice or bias. (iv) In view of the importance of the "in-house procedure", it is essential to bring it into public domain. The Registry of the Supreme Court of India, is accordingly directed, to place the same on the official website of the Supreme Court of India. 76 54. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, our conclusions are as under: (i) With reference to the "in-house procedure" pertaining to a judge of a High Court, the limited authority of the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, is to determine whether or not a deeper probe is required. The said determination is a part of stage-one (comprising of the first three steps) of the "in-house procedure" (elucidated in paragraph 37, hereinabove). The Chief Justice of the High Court, in the present case, traveled beyond the determinative authority vested in him, under stage-one of the "in-house procedure". (ii) The Chief Justice of the High Court, by constituting a "two-Judge Committee", commenced an in-depth probe, into the allegations levelled by the Petitioner. The procedure adopted by the Chief Justice of the High Court, forms a part of the second stage (contemplated under steps four to sevenelucidated in paragraph 37, hereinabove). The second stage of the "in-house procedure" is to be carried out, under the authority of the Chief Justice of India. The Chief Justice of the High Court by constituting a "two-Judge Committee" clearly traversed beyond his jurisdictional authority, under the "inhouse procedure". (iii) In order to ensure, that the investigative process is fair and just, it is imperative to divest the concerned judge (against whom allegations have been levelled), of his administrative and supervisory authority and control over witnesses, to be produced either on behalf of the complainant, or on behalf of the concerned judge himself. The Chief Justice of the High Court is accordingly directed to divest Respondent 77 No. 3 -Justice 'A', of the administrative and supervisory control vested in him, to the extent expressed above. (iv) The Chief Justice of the High Court, having assumed a firm position, in respect of certain facts contained in the complaint filed by the Petitioner, ought not to be associated with the "in-house procedure" in the present case. In the above view of the matter, the Chief Justice of India may reinitiate the investigative process, under the "in-house procedure", by vesting the authority required to be discharged by the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, to a Chief Justice of some other High Court, or alternatively, the Chief Justice of India may himself assume the said role. 47.6. Step six If the “three-member Committee” constituted by the Chief Justice of India, arrives at the conclusion, that the misconduct is not serious enough for initiation of proceedings for the removal of the Judge concerned, the Chief Justice of India shall advise the Judge concerned, and may also direct, that the report of the “three-member Committee” be placed on record. If the “three-member Committee” has concluded, that there is substance in the allegations, for initiation of proceedings, for the removal of the Judge concerned, the Chief Justice of India shall proceed as under: (i) The Judge concerned will be advised, by the Chief Justice of India, to resign or to seek voluntary retirement. (ii) In case the Judge concerned does not accept the advice of the Chief Justice of India, the Chief Justice of India, would require the Chief Justice of the 78 High Court concerned, not to allocate any judicial work, to the Judge concerned.”