SC Upholds Constitutionality of Judges In-House Disciplinary Procedure
In News
What Happened
Why It Matters
Background
History & Context
What Changed
- ▶
BEFORE: The In-House Procedure was often viewed as an informal, administrative mechanism, leaving room for judges to legally challenge its authority to issue adverse reports. NOW: The Supreme Court has explicitly upheld it as a constitutionally valid gap-filling measure.
- ▶
BEFORE: There was ambiguity on how to handle judicial misconduct that did not meet the high threshold for impeachment under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. NOW: The ruling solidifies the in-house committee's report as a legitimate disciplinary tool short of parliamentary removal.
- ▶
BEFORE: Accused judges could contest the jurisdiction of peer committees investigating them. NOW: The jurisdiction of the Chief Justice of India and the peer committees to conduct fact-finding inquiries and enforce accountability is legally affirmed.
Prelims Angle
NCERT Connection
Practice Questions
Q1
Correct Statement(s)Which of the following statements is/are correct regarding the disciplinary mechanisms for judges of the higher judiciary in India? 1. The Constitution of India explicitly prescribes both impeachment and in-house disciplinary warnings as methods to penalize errant judges. 2. The In-House Procedure for investigating complaints against judges was formally adopted by the Supreme Court in 1999.