Universal Coaching Centre -

Enter your keyword

8053+ OFFICERS SERVING THE NATION UNIVERSAL COACHING CENTRE Let's join hands together in bringing Your Name in Elite officers list. JOIN US 25 YEARS OF EXCELLENCE MEET NEW FRIENDS AND STUDY WITH EXPERTS JOIN US Nothing is better than having friends study together. Each student can learn from others through by teamwork building and playing interesting games. Following instruction of experts, you and friends will gain best scores.

ULP Click here! Click here! Classroom Programme NRA-CET Test Series
Click here ! Org code: XSHWV

post

Supreme Court Questions Judge’s Challenge to Inquiry Procedure

Why in the News?

The Supreme Court questioned Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma’s move against the in-house inquiry conducted over allegations of burnt currency found on his premises. The court stressed the importance of preserving judicial integrity through established procedures.

Supreme Court’s Observations on Justice Varma’s Conduct

  • Justice Varma moved the Supreme Court only after the inquiry’s adverse outcome became “unpalatable.”
  • The inquiry, initiated by former CJI Sanjiv Khanna, found burnt currency at Justice Varma’s residence and recommended removal.
  • The Bench led by Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih stated that after submitting to the inquiry, Varma must accept its findings.
  • The court said his conduct does not inspire confidence as he challenged the process post-outcome.
  • The CJI is not a mere post office to forward complaints without discretion.

Legal Arguments and Pending Judgment

  • Senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued the in-house procedure alone suffices for judge removal, questioning the need for parliamentary motions.
  • He cited Articles 124(4), 124(5), and 218 as providing a complete removal mechanism and called any other procedure ultra vires.
  • Sibal also noted Justice Varma’s only recourse to challenge the inquiry’s validity is the Supreme Court.
  • The Bench reserved its judgment on the petition challenging both the inquiry’s validity and removal recommendation.
  • The case highlights tensions between judicial accountability and procedural fairness within the judiciary.

Understanding the In-House Inquiry Procedure: An Institutional Mechanism:
● The in-house inquiry is a judicial mechanism to uphold the integrity and moral vigour of the judiciary.
● Established through Supreme Court judgments and backed by Article 141 of the Constitution, the procedure is binding on all judges.
● The Chief Justice of India (CJI) appoints a committee to conduct preliminary probes before deciding on judge removal.
● This process has existed for over 30 years, and judges submit to it upon oath-taking.
● It aims to fill the gap by enabling informed CJI decisions rather than blindly forwarding complaints to Parliament.

About Article 141 of the Indian Constitution :
● Binding Nature: Declares that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India.
● Judicial Precedent: Ensures uniformity and consistency in legal interpretation across the country.
● Scope: Applies to both civil and criminal courts, and includes High Courts.
● Not Legislative: Does not equate to legislation but has legal force as precedent.
● Purpose: Aims to maintain the authority and supremacy of the Supreme Court’s decisions.