In-house judicial inquiry procedure receives full validation; writ challenging CJI’s referral to President and PM is dismissed

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih heard a writ petition filed by a sitting Judge of the Allahabad High Court seeking to quash the in‑house “Procedure” (Full Court resolution dated 15.12.1999) and the Chief Justice of India’s alleged intimation to the President and the Prime Minister after a three‑member committee inquiry. The petition challenged paragraphs 5(b) and 7(ii) of the Procedure as ultra vires Articles 124, 217 and 218 and as violative of Articles 14 and 21, and sought setting aside of the committee’s report dated 3.5.2025.

The Court summarised and endorsed the settled position that the in‑house Procedure constituted a lawful, non‑punitive, fact‑finding mechanism developed to “fill the yawning gap” between proven misbehaviour requiring impeachment and lesser misconduct. It held that the Procedure had acquired legal sanction by this Court’s precedents and that the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 did not oust the Supreme Court’s power to initiate or conduct in‑house inquiries. The Court emphasised the distinct roles of a preliminary in‑house probe and the constitutional impeachment machinery, and observed that the Committee’s report was preliminary and did not itself effect removal. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The bench therefore dismissed the writ petition.

Background: The petitioner, a Judge who had served on the Delhi High Court and was at the time a Judge of the Allahabad High Court, faced an in‑house inquiry after burnt currency notes were found in a storeroom of his official bungalow following a fire. The Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court had sought a response and the Chief Justice of India constituted a three‑member Committee on 22.3.2025. The Committee inspected the premises, recorded witness versions, furnished them to the petitioner and afforded him an opportunity to state his case. Its report dated 3.5.2025 recorded that there was “sufficient substance in the allegations” and that the misconduct was serious enough to call for initiation of removal proceedings; the CJI then gave the judge the option to resign or seek voluntary retirement and, after no such step, a press release recorded that the CJI had forwarded the report to the President and the Prime Minister. The petitioner challenged the Procedure to the extent it empowered the Committee to opine that the misconduct warranted removal and the CJI to intimate the President and Prime Minister, contending that the Inquiry Act and Articles 124/217/218 formed an exhaustive code for removal and that public dissemination of inquiry materials had prejudiced his rights. The petitioner relied on precedents including Sub‑Committee on Judicial Accountability, C. Ravichandran Iyer and Indira Jaising; he sought quashing of the report and the alleged intimation.

The Court reviewed constitutional provisions, the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, the genesis of the 1999 Full Court Procedure and the subsequent authorities. It reiterated that the in‑house inquiry was a preliminary, fact‑finding exercise and that the formal constitutional removal process by Parliament under Articles 124/217/218 remained the only mechanism for removal. The Court noted prior authority that the in‑house report was “preliminary in nature, ad hoc and not final” and acknowledged that uploading of photographs/video on the Court website was not contemplated by the Procedure and was improper, but recorded that the petitioner had not protested the upload or the inquiry at the earliest opportunity. The Court held that the CJI could lawfully forward the Committee’s report with his views to the President and Prime Minister and that such communication did not amount to an extra‑constitutional removal mechanism. The petition was dismissed; the Court observed that any future reliance on the in‑house report in formal proceedings would afford the judge all statutory rights under the Inquiry Act.

Case Details: Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 699 of 2025 (2025 INSC 943) Case Title: XXX … Petitioner v. The Union of India & Others … Respondents Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kapil Sibal, Senior Counsel (with other senior counsel assisting) For the Respondent(s): Not indicated / not recorded in the judgment text available

Date of judgment: 07 August 2025 Disposition: Writ petition dismissed.