Allegations of misconduct against judges

Andhra Pradesh government released a letter written by Chief Minister Jagan Mohan Reddy to Chief Justice of India SA Bobde that made serious allegations against the second senior-most judge of the Supreme Court NV Ramana.

The Constitution protects the independence of judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court by making them removable only through a long process of impeachment.
However, not all forms of misconduct will warrant impeachment. There could be other kinds of impropriety too. There are times when serious complaints of this sort are received, and the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is called upon to examine them.
Since 1997, judges have adopted an ‘in-house procedure’ for inquiring into such charges.

After Justice J.S. Verma took over as Chief Justice of India (CJI) in 1997, he circulated among judges a document called ‘Restatement of Values of Judicial life’. This was a set of principles containing the essential elements of ideal behaviour for judges.
The Full Court passed a resolution that an ‘in-house procedure’ would be adopted for action against judges for acts of commission or omission that go against these values. A five-judge committee was constituted to come up with a procedure. Its report was adopted on December 15, 1999. It was made public in 2014.

When a complaint is received against a High Court judge, the CJI should decide if it is considered frivolous or if it is “directly related to the merits of a substantive decision in a judicial matter”, or it does not involve any serious misconduct or impropriety.
If it is serious, the CJI should get the judge’s response. He may close the matter if he is satisfied with the response. If a deeper probe is considered necessary, both the complaint and the judge’s response, along with the Chief Justice’s comments, are recorded for further action.
After considering the High Court’s Chief Justice, the judge involved and the complaint, the CJI, if deemed necessary, forms a three-member committee. The committee should have two Chief Justices from other High Courts and one High Court judge.
The inquiry it holds is of the nature of a fact-finding mission and is not a formal judicial inquiry involving examination of witnesses. The judge concerned is entitled to appear before it.
If the case is against a High Court’s Chief Justice, the same procedure is followed, but the probe committee comprises a Supreme Court judge and two Chief Justices.
If a Supreme Court judge faces such a charge, the in-house panel will comprise three Supreme Court judges. The in-house procedure does not give any separate provision to deal with complaints against the Chief Justice of India. But in practice, a panel of three other Supreme Court justices is formed.

If the committee finds substance in the charges, it can give two kinds of recommendations. One, that the misconduct is serious enough to require removal from office, or that it is not serious enough to warrant removal.
In the former case, the judge concerned will be urged to resign or seek voluntary retirement. If the judge is unwilling to quit, the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned would be asked to withdraw judicial work from him.
The President and the Prime Minister will be informed of the situation. This is expected to clear the way for Parliament to begin the process of impeachment. If the misconduct does not warrant removal, the judge would be advised accordingly.

Today Current Affairs Upsc Exam Syllabus & Previous Yearpaper.