Case Note & Summary
By way of a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, a sitting Judge of the Allahabad High Court approached the Supreme Court seeking enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 and challenging the constitutional validity of paragraphs 5(b) and 7(ii) of the In-House Procedure dated 15.12.1999. The petitioner, who was earlier a Judge of the Delhi High Court, confronted an unsavoury situation when a fire broke out in a store-room of his official bungalow while he was away. During firefighting operations, burnt currency notes were discovered inside the store-room. This discovery raised suspicion about the petitioner's adherence to judicial values and triggered scrutiny under the In-House Procedure devised by the Supreme Court in its Full Court meeting on 15.12.1999. The Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court sought a response by letter dated 21.03.2025. The petitioner responded on 22.03.2025, denying that he or his family members had placed any cash in the store-room and alleging that the cash must have been planted to frame him. He did not deny the fire or the discovery of burnt notes. On the same day, a three-member Committee was constituted by the Chief Justice of India, and a press release disclosed the names of the members and that the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court had been asked not to assign judicial work to the petitioner. Around the same time, certain documents, photographs, and video footage linked to the incident were placed in the public domain. On 24.03.2025, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended repatriation of the petitioner to his parent High Court. The Committee inspected the fire-ravaged store-room, recorded statements of witnesses, furnished the witness versions to the petitioner, and gave him an opportunity to state his case. The Committee submitted its report on 03.05.2025, finding sufficient substance in the allegations and recording that the misconduct proved was serious enough to call for initiation of proceedings for removal. By letter dated 04.05.2025, the Chief Justice of India gave the petitioner the option to resign or seek voluntary retirement by 06.05.2025, failing which competent authorities would be intimated to initiate removal action. The petitioner responded on 06.05.2025 seeking reconsideration and more time to submit a written representation, and expressed his inability to resign or seek voluntary retirement. His prayers were not granted, and a press release dated 08.05.2025 stated that the Chief Justice of India had written to the President and Prime Minister and forwarded the Committee's report and the petitioner's response. The petitioner filed the writ petition on 17.07.2025, seeking declarations that paragraphs 5(b) and 7 of the In-House Procedure are unconstitutional and ultra vires, quashing of the intimation to the President and Prime Minister, and quashing of the Final Report dated 03.05.2025 and all consequential actions. Senior counsel Mr. Kapil Sibal argued for the petitioner, contending that Articles 124 and 218 of the Constitution read with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 constitute a complete and comprehensive code for removal of High Court judges, and that the In-House Procedure, to the extent it permits the Committee to recommend removal and the CJI to intimate the President and Prime Minister, is outside constitutional sanction and violates Articles 14 and 21 due to lack of procedural safeguards and public disclosure of evidence. He relied on Indira Jaising, Sahara India, and Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability. The judgment excerpt provided does not include the court's analysis or final decision.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Removal of High Court Judges - Articles 124 and 218 Constitution of India constitute complete code for removal; In-House Procedure paragraphs 5(b) and 7(ii) challenged as ultra vires - Petitioner, a sitting High Court Judge, challenged constitutional validity of paragraphs 5(b) and 7(ii) of In-House Procedure dated 15.12.1999 which permitted in-house committee to opine on serious misconduct warranting removal and CJI to intimate President/PM for initiating removal proceedings - Petitioner contended that Articles 124/218 read with Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 form exhaustive removal process and any procedure enabling removal recommendation is unconstitutional - Court heard arguments on validity of these provisions (Paras 8-11) B) Administrative Law - Procedural Fairness - Article 14 Constitution of India - In-House Procedure lacks safeguards like framing of charges, cross-examination, strict proof, rendering process arbitrary - Petitioner argued that the procedure allowed committee to hold judge guilty of serious misconduct and call for removal based on prima facie view without due process safeguards, violating equal protection - Court considered whether such procedure is arbitrary under Article 14 (Paras 12-13) C) Constitutional Law - Separation of Powers - Articles 124, 218 Constitution of India - CJI's recommendation to President/Prime Minister to initiate removal is beyond judicial domain and infringes separation of powers - Petitioner contended that recommendation from CJI acts as virtual death knell and circumvents constitutionally prescribed mechanisms - Court heard submissions on separation of powers implications (Paras 13-14) D) Constitutional Law - Right to Reputation and Fair Trial - Article 21 Constitution of India - Uploading photographs/video footage and Committee report on Supreme Court website violated petitioner's right to reputation and fair trial - Petitioner relied on Indira Jaising and Sahara India to argue that public disclosure tarnished reputation and convicted before fair inquiry - Court considered whether public disclosure abrogated Article 21 rights (Paras 15-16) E) Constitutional Law - Scope of In-House Procedure - In-House Procedure dated 15.12.1999 - Valid self-regulation mechanism but only for disciplinary action short of removal; cannot trigger removal process - Petitioner admitted validity of In-House Procedure for self-regulation but challenged specific paragraphs enabling removal recommendations - Court heard limited challenge to those paragraphs (Paras 8-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether paragraphs 5(b) and 7(ii) of In-House Procedure dated 15.12.1999, to the extent they enable the In-House Committee to inquire and comment on existence of 'serious misconduct warranting removal' and enable the CJI to intimate the same to President and Prime Minister for initiating removal proceedings, are unconstitutional and ultra vires Articles 124, 218, 14, and 21 of Constitution of India; whether the Final Report dated 03.05.2025 and consequential actions should be quashed.
Law Points
- Articles 124 and 218 of Constitution of India provide complete code for removal of High Court judges
- In-House Procedure paragraphs 5(b) and 7(ii) enabling in-house committee to opine on serious misconduct warranting removal and CJI to intimate President/Prime Minister are challenged as ultra vires
- Judges (Inquiry) Act
- 1968 read with Articles 124 and 218 constitutes exhaustive removal process
- lack of procedural safeguards in In-House Procedure violates Article 14
- public disclosure of evidence violates Article 21 right to reputation.
