Mentor’s Comment:  Understanding the in-house inquiry process is essential for GS Paper 2  as it highlights judicial accountability and self-regulation. The inquiry against Justice Yashwant Varma underscores concerns over transparency, delays, and the lack of external oversight in handling judicial misconduct. This article helps aspirants analyze judicial independence, the need for reforms, and ways to enhance public trust, making it valuable for Mains questions on judicial accountability.

_

Let’s learn!

Why in the News?

A three-member committee will investigate the allegations of cash found at the official residence of Delhi High Court Judge Yashwant Varma.

What is the current issue involving Justice Yashwant Varma? What led to the in-house inquiry against him?

• Fire Incident and Discovery of Cash: A fire broke out at Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence (Delhi High Court) on March 14. Fire-control personnel discovered huge piles of burnt cash in a storeroom. Example: Similar cases in the past, like Justice Soumitra Sen’s impeachment (2011), highlight concerns over judicial integrity.
• Preliminary Inquiry and Response: The Chief Justice of Delhi High Court conducted a preliminary inquiry and recommended a deeper probe to the Chief Justice of India (CJI). Justice Varma denied any knowledge of the cash, stating that neither he nor his family had placed it in the storeroom. Example: In Justice P.D. Dinakaran’s case (2011), allegations of corruption led to an investigation and resignation.
• Formation of an In-House Inquiry Committee: The CJI constituted a three-member committee as per the Supreme Court’s in-house procedure. Justice Varma’s judicial work was withdrawn, and he was transferred to the Allahabad High Court. Example: In 2019, Justice S.N. Shukla (Allahabad HC) was found guilty of misconduct by an in-house committee, leading to his removal process.

Why is there a need for reforms in the judicial inquiry process? 

• Lack of Transparency in In-House Inquiries: The findings of judicial misconduct inquiries are not made public, reducing accountability and eroding public trust. The Supreme Court should disclose key findings to instill confidence in the process. Example: The Justice S.N. Shukla (2019) case remained confidential despite serious allegations of misconduct.
• Absence of Criminal Liability for Judges: Judges found guilty of misconduct are only asked to resign or face impeachment, with no criminal proceedings initiated. Judges found guilty of corruption or abuse of power should face legal prosecution, like other public officials. Example: Justice Soumitra Sen (2011) was impeached for financial misconduct but did not face any criminal charges.
• Collegium System’s Lack of Oversight: The current system of judges appointing judges lacks external accountability, making disciplinary actions inconsistent. A broad-based Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) should oversee both appointments and misconduct inquiries. Example: The NJAC (2015) was struck down by the Supreme Court, keeping the opaque collegium system intact.
• No Independent Body for Judicial Discipline: India lacks an independent statutory authority to investigate judicial misconduct, leading to delays and conflicts of interest. Establishing a Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, similar to the UK’s model, would ensure impartial investigations.Example: The UK’s Judicial Conduct Investigations Office ensures independent scrutiny of complaints against judges.
• Slow and Ineffective Inquiry Process: Judicial misconduct cases often drag on for years, allowing judges to retire without consequences. Setting strict timelines for inquiries and fast-tracking disciplinary actions would improve efficiency. Example: Justice P.D. Dinakaran’s case (alleged land grabbing) took years, and he resigned before impeachment proceedings could conclude.

How does the in-house inquiry process compare to international practices, such as the UK’s Judicial Conduct Investigations Office?

• Independence of Inquiry Process: The in-house inquiry is conducted by sitting judges, which may lead to conflicts of interest. The JCIO is an independent statutory body, separate from the judiciary, ensuring impartiality. Example: In India, inquiries against judges often lack external oversight, whereas in the UK, the JCIO investigates complaints independently.
• Transparency in Investigation and Findings: In-house inquiries are confidential, and findings are rarely made public. The JCIO publishes key details of misconduct cases, fostering transparency and public trust. Example: The dismissal of a UK judge for inappropriate behavior was publicly reported, whereas similar cases in India remain undisclosed.
• Consequences for Judicial Misconduct: Indian Judges found guilty may be asked to resign or face impeachment, but rarely face criminal action. The JCIO can recommend removal from office, financial penalties, or disciplinary actions, and misconduct can lead to legal prosecution. Example: In India, Justice Soumitra Sen was impeached but faced no criminal charges, whereas in the UK, judges have been removed for misconduct.
• Public Accessibility and Complaint Mechanism: In India, complaints against judges go through the Chief Justice and are not directly accessible to the public. UK Citizens can file complaints directly with the JCIO through an online portal, ensuring accessibility. Example: In the UK, public complaints against judges are reviewed transparently, while in India, the process is internal and often delayed.
• Time-bound investigation and Action: In India, no fixed timeline for in-house inquiries, leading to delays in disciplinary actions. In the UK, JCIO follows a structured timeline for investigations and ensures timely resolution. Example: Justice P.D. Dinakaran’s case in India dragged on for years, whereas JCIO inquiries in the UK conclude within months.

Way forward: 

• Establish an Independent Judicial Oversight Body: Create a statutory authority to investigate judicial misconduct, ensuring impartiality and timely resolution. Example: A model similar to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office would enhance accountability.
• Enhance Transparency and Public Trust: Publish key findings of judicial inquiries and introduce structured timelines for investigations. Example: Releasing redacted reports on judicial misconduct can improve public confidence.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now