INDIRA JAISING versus REGISTRAR GENERAL, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 108 · Decided: 09-05-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
INDIRA JAISING 
V. 
REGISTRAR GENERAL, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AND ANR. 
MAY 9, 2003 
B 
(S. RAJENDRA BABU AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Judiciary: 
C 
Judges Inquiry Act, 1968/Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 32, 124 
and 217-Allegation of involvement of certain sitting judges of Karnataka 
High Court in an incident-Constitution of Committee of Judges-Its report 
not made public-Writ petition under Article 32-Claim for direction for 
publication of report and for investigation by an independent investigating 
agency-Held: Inquiry ordered and report made to Chief Justice of India 
D being confidential and discreet is only for the purpose of his information and 
not for disclosure to any other person-Thus such direction/or publication of 
report and investigation by an independent agency cannot be granted-
Appropriate course is to invoke Article 124 or 217. 
It is alleged that certain sitting Judges of High Court of Karnataka 
E were involved in some incidents. A Committee consisting of two Chief 
Justices and a Judge was constituted. Its report was given to the Chief 
Justice of India, but it was not published. Hence the present writ petition. 
Petitioner contended that the inquiry report made by the committee 
F be published and a professional and independent investigating agency 
having expertise to conduct a thorough investigation be directed to conduct 
investigation into the said incident and to submit the report to this Court. 
Dismissing the writ petition, the Court 
G 
HELD: I.I. The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 has been enacted 
H 
providing for the manner of conducting inquiry into the allegation of 
judicial conduct. No other disciplinary inquiry is envisaged or 
contemplated either under the Constitution or under the Act. On account 
of this lacuna, in-House procedure has been adopted for inquiry to be 
made by the peers of Judges for report to the Chief Justice of India in 
108 
INDIRA JAISING v. REGISTRAR GENERAL S.C.I. 
I 09 
case of a complaint against the Chief Justices or Judges of the High Court A 
in order to find out the truth of the imputation made in the complaint 
and that, in-House inquiry is only for the purpose of his information and 
satisfaction. A report made on such inquiry if given publicity will only lead 
to more harm than good to the institution as Judges would. prefer to face 
inquiry leading to impeachment. In such a case the only course open to B 
the parties concerned if they have material is to invoke the provisions of 
Article 124 or Article 217 of the Constitution, as the case may be. It is 
not appropriate for the petitioner to approach this Court for the relief or 
direction to release the Report. It is purely preliminary in nature, ad hoc 
and not final. If the Chief Justice of India is satisfied that no further action 
is called for in the matter, the proceeding is closed. If any further action C 
is to be taken as indicated in the in-House procedure itself, the Chief 
Justice of India may take such further steps as he deems fit. Therefore, in 
the hierarchy of the courts, the Supreme Court does not have any 
disciplinary control over the High Court Judges, much less the Chief 
Justice of India has any disciplinary control over any of the Judges. That 
position in law is very clear. Thus, the only source or authority by which 
the Chief Justice of India can exercise this power of inquiry is moral or 
ethical and not in exercise of powers under any law. Hence, exercise of 
such power cannot be made the subject matter of a writ petition to disclose 
a report made to him. [111-E-H; 112-B-CI 
1.2. Even the Freedom of Information Act, 2002, does not say in 
absolute terms that information gathered at any level in any manner for 
any purpose shall be disclosed to the public. The inquiry ordered and the 
report made to the Chief Justice of India being confidential and discreet 
D 
E 
is only for the purpose of his information and not for the purpose of 
disclosure to any other person. Therefore, the submission for a direction F 
to release the said Report is rejected in limine. [112-F, G, H; 113-A) 
1.3. No parallel or analogy can be drawn to a statement made by 
the then Chief Justice of India, while withdrawing work from Justice V. 
Ramaswami, where the report of the committee was made public. In the 
first place, the Chief Justice in that case unilaterally withdrew work from G 
Justice V. Ramaswami. That was his own decision and perhaps to tell the 
public as to what he was doin

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.