How is an in-house inquiry conducted?

Home » How is an in-house inquiry conducted?

Current Issue and Its Implications

The allegations of misconduct against Justice Yashwant Varma and the in-house inquiry raise fundamental concerns about judicial accountability and the mechanism of judicial oversight in India.
The discovery of burnt currency notes at his residence has triggered deeper scrutiny, leading to his transfer to the Allahabad High Court and suspension of judicial work.

Relevance : GS 2(Judiciary ,Governance)

In-House Inquiry Mechanism (1999 Resolution, Public in 2014)
1. Established to self-regulate the judiciary without external interference.
2. Follows a confidential process where an inquiry committee of senior judges reviews allegations and recommends action.
3. If serious misconduct is found, the judge is requested to resign; if not, the matter is closed.

Judicial Accountability in India
- Collegium System (Post-1993): Judges appoint judges, ensuring judicial independence but raising concerns about lack of transparency.
- Impeachment Process (Article 124 & 217 of the Constitution): Removal of judges via parliamentary process is rare and cumbersome, with only one judge (Justice V. Ramaswami) facing impeachment proceedings in 1993, which eventually failed.
Judicial Misconduct Cases in the Past
- Justice Soumitra Sen (2011): Rajya Sabha passed an impeachment motion, but he resigned before Lok Sabha could act.
- Justice P.D. Dinakaran (2011): Accused of corruption, he resigned before impeachment could proceed.
- Justice C.S. Karnan (2017): Sentenced to jail for contempt, a rare instance of a sitting judge facing criminal conviction.

Transparency in Judicial Inquiries
1. The in-house mechanism is currently opaque; only the President and PM are informed if serious misconduct is found.
2. There is a need for public disclosure of key findings while maintaining judicial independence.

Criminal Liability for Judges
- No criminal punishment has ever been imposed even when judges were found guilty of misconduct.
- Strengthening investigative autonomy for serious offenses (e.g., financial corruption, bribery) is crucial.
- Comparison with the UK Model:
  - Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) independently probes misconduct.
  - A similar statutory body in India could make investigations more credible and impartial.
Revival of the NJAC Debate
- NJAC (2014) aimed at transparency but was struck down in 2015 for violating judicial independence.
- A modified NJAC 2.0 could ensure a broad-based selection committee with final veto power resting with the CJI.
- Comparing South Africa’s Judicial Service Commission:
  - Includes judges, legal professionals, and legislators in judicial appointments.
  - Balances accountability with judicial independence.