Judicial Accountability and the In-House Inquiry Procedure
UPSC Relevance
Prelims: Indian Polity and Governance (Indian Judiciary - Supreme Court, High Courts, Appointment and Removal of Judges, Constitutional Provisions).
Mains: GS Paper 2 (Structure, organization and functioning of the Judiciary; Separation of powers between various organs; Accountability and transparency).
Key Highlights from the News
Supreme Court Verdict: The Supreme Court ruled that the in-house inquiry procedure for investigating allegations against judges has legal validity. The Court observed that this is essential to maintain the judiciary's purity and transparency.
Background: The Supreme Court's verdict came while dismissing a petition filed by Allahabad High Court Judge Justice Yashwant Varma against an in-house inquiry report. This inquiry was initiated after burnt currency notes were found at his residence following a fire.
Petitioner's Argument: Justice Varma argued that this in-house inquiry method is an 'extra-constitutional mechanism' and violates Parliament's exclusive power to remove judges.
Constitutional Procedure: The petition highlighted that a comprehensive legal framework for the removal of judges already exists, comprising Article 124(5) and Article 218 of the Constitution, along with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
Court's Observation: The Court clarified that the in-house inquiry report does not influence or limit Parliament's power in any way. Parliament's authority to decide whether or not to initiate proceedings for a judge's removal is absolute.
Legal Validity: The in-house inquiry procedure derives its legal sanction from previous Supreme Court judgments. The Bench pointed out that according to Article 141, Supreme Court judgments are the law of the land.
"A stitch in time": The Court described the in-house inquiry as a timely step taken to preserve the sanctity of the judiciary.
COMMENTS