An internal investigation by the judiciary into a Delhi High Court judge

Regarding the In-House Investigation's History and Evolution:

An internal investigation system was required after A.M. Bhattacharjee, the chief justice of the Bombay High Court, was accused of financial misconduct in 1995.

In response to a case involving allegations against former SC judge Justice V. Ramaswami, the Supreme Court created In-House Procedure in 1997. In 2014, the process was enhanced following a sexual harassment complaint that led to the development of a seven-step inquiry framework.

Key Distinctions Between Impeachment and the In-House Investigation Unlike impeachment, which requires parliamentary approval under Article 124(4) of the Constitution, the in-house inquiry is an internal procedure intended to address actions that violate judicial norms.

Formation of Inquiry Committees: Committees typically consist of senior judges from different High Courts in order to preserve objectivity. The Chief Justices of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Himachal Pradesh High Court, and Karnataka High Court are among the three members of the committee that is currently working on the case.

Transparency: Recent investigations have demonstrated a commitment to transparency in their reports and accompanying documentation.

The Internal Research Procedure

• Initial Scrutiny: The Chief Justice of the relevant High Court considers complaints against High Court judges after the Chief Justice of India (CJI) considers complaints against Supreme Court judges.
• Committee Formation: If a prima facie case is presented, a three-judge committee is appointed to investigate the claims.
• Procedures for the Inquiry: The committee examines the evidence, questions the accused judge, and looks into the allegations.
• Submission of the Report: After receiving the committee's findings, the CJI decides what to do next.

Issues with the Internal Investigation Process

Lack of Transparency: The inquiry is conducted behind closed doors, and the public is not informed of the findings. It raises issues of accountability. Absence of binding authority Even if misconduct is proven, the judiciary cannot remove a judge on its own; Parliament must impeach the judge.

Rare Impeachment: As the cases of Justice S. N. Shukla (2022) and Justice Ramaswami (1991) show, judges are nearly impossible to remove because of the complex impeachment process.

Political Influence: Political factors have the potential to reduce the effectiveness of the impeachment process. Investigations can take years, delaying justice and undermining public confidence in the legal system's accountability.

Famous Indian Judicial Inquiry Cases

In the 1991 case of Justice V. Ramaswami, Parliament was unable to remove the first judge to be impeached because of political scheming.

The Rajya Sabha passed an impeachment motion against Justice Soumitra Sen in the 2011 case after an internal investigation found him guilty of financial impropriety; however, he retired before the Lok Sabha could cast its vote.

In the 2022 case of Justice S. N. Shukla, he was accused of favoring private medical colleges and was found guilty after an internal investigation, although he was not impeached