Critically examine the 'in-house procedure' adopted by the Apex Court to inquire into allegations of misconduct against judges of constitutional courts in India.

Strengths of 'in-house procedure': 1) Ensures judicial transparency and accountability 2) It can provide a torchbearer for taking action against corrupt judges 3) Promote a spirit of enquiry into injustices through the

initiative on part of Supreme Court 4) It can help Parliament in its impeachment for removal of judges 5) It provides confidence to the public in the judiciary of the country 6) It ensures that judiciary is not only independent but also responsible Limitation of 'in-house procedure': 1) According to constitution, judges can be removed from Supreme Court or High Court only by the President of India 2) The judges inquiring Act, 1986

provide for mechanism of removal: Parliament adopts resolution ↙ Rajya Sabha (50 members) ↘ L.S. (100 members) ↓ Constitute committee consisting of judges ↓ Finding the ? → Parliament votes → Special majority → Passed → President remove judge ↓ F No impeachment (3) Thus 'in-house procedure' can be just an institution, but no significant result. The Supreme Court through its procedure sets high watermark of judicial effectiveness

— UJJWAL PRIYANK · AIR 10