NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court of India has made a strong and far-reaching decision that makes it clear how important the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is in dealing with judicial misconduct. The court said that the CJI is not just a “post office” when it comes to sending the results of an in-house investigation against a high court judge to the President and the Prime Minister. Instead, the decision stresses the CJI’s “central, moral, and deliberative role” in keeping the judiciary’s institutional discipline and legitimacy.
The decision came from a plea by Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court, who fought against then-CJI Sanjiv Khanna’s recommendation that he be removed. After an internal investigation team uncovered burned money at Justice Varma’s official home in Delhi, the proposal was made. Justice Varma contended that the Chief Justice of India lacked the jurisdiction to provide such a recommendation, asserting that it would unjustly compromise the legislative impeachment process, so infringing upon the principle of separation of powers.
The Supreme Court bench strongly disagreed with this point of view, saying, “We have no hesitation in saying that the CJI is not just a post office between the committee [in-house] and the President or the Prime Minister that the report is to be sent on without any comments or suggestions.” The court made it clear that the CJI must explain why judicial work has been withheld from the judge. In circumstances of egregious misbehavior, the CJI has the power to “endorse such finding while forwarding the report of inquiry.”
The ruling went into more detail about this topic, saying that although if the Constitution does not provide the CJI administrative control over high courts, the CJI nevertheless has a “significant moral responsibility” for the general integrity of the judiciary. The court said that the in-house procedure is an important, court-recognized way to address a “yawning gap in our constitutional framework” for keeping an eye on judges who don’t meet the constitutional requirement for impeachment, which is “proved misbehaviour.”
The court also looked at the claim that the CJI’s activities could hurt the parliamentary process. It said that the CJI’s sharing of an in-house committee’s conclusions does not violate Parliament’s authority. Instead, it is an important aspect of a “regulated discretion” that protects the integrity of the judiciary. The panel also upheld the administrative authority to prevent a judge from performing judicial duties during an ongoing investigation, noting that “Judicial independence does not equate to the freedom to act arbitrarily.” It is linked to accountability in the courts.
The verdict backs up the idea that the President is not a “stranger” to the in-house procedure, as complaints typically come from the President’s own office. The ruling says that whenever the CJI starts an in-house investigation, it must end with the CJI giving the president and Prime Minister advice or a recommendation based on what the committee found.