Critically examine the 'in-house procedure' adopted by the Apex Court to inquire into allegations of misconduct against judges of constitutional courts in India.
Introduction
12 words
Main Body
Recent case finding in evidence of Delhi HC Judge Justice Yashwant Verma performed in-house procedure to establish a mechanism to inquire via the 'in-house procedure'. Evolution of 'in-house procedure': → 1) V.Ramanswamy case 1993 → 2) Saumitra Datha case 2011 Mechanism: Complaint of misconduct against Judge → CTI Forum → submit → 2-member Drafting Drafting Committee to inquire → submit CTI → (ex: CJI of HC + 2 Justice of HC in Assent Case) Is an extra-constitutional measure adopted by SC.
Benefit: 1) Case inquired into by Judicial merit by 3 Judge panel. 2) Enhanced accountability → direct approach to CTI. 3) Doesn't interfere into working of mechanism of Act 124(4). 4) Provides additional insights. Limns: 1) Acts as parallel to established mechanism under Act 124(4) and Judges Enquiry Act 1968 2) VP termed the inquiry by EC as 'inconsequential' because it will have no impact on finding of Parliament established committee.
— MADHVENDRA PRATAP SINGH · AIR 153
Conclusion
14 words
Diagram
Mechanism flowchart showing: Complaint of misconduct against Judge → CTI Forum → submit → 2-member/multi-member Drafting Committee to inquire → submit to CTI
MADHVENDRA PRATAP SINGH
Executive, Judiciary, Ministries and Pressure Groups
Judiciary
In-house Procedure for Judicial Accountability
252
Total words
1
Paragraphs
analytical
Tone