LexXXX versus THE UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1941 : 2025 INSC 943 XXX v. The Union of India & Others (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 699 of 2025) 07 August 2025 [Dipankar Datta* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the writ petition be entertained at all having regard to the conduct of the petitioner-High Court Judge; does the In-house Procedure have legal sanction; is an inquiry and the consequent report in terms of the Procedure (which could be unfavourable to the Judge under probe) a parallel and extra- constitutional mechanism; does paragraph 5(b) of the Procedure foul clauses (4) and (5) of Art.124 r/w. Arts.217 and 218 of the Constitution or abrogate any Fundamental Right of a Judge of a High Court; did the CJI/the Committee constituted by the CJI act in terms of the Procedure or in deviation thereof; and is the requirement of paragraph 7(ii) of the Procedure obliging the CJI to forward the report of the Committee to the President and the Prime Minister unconstitutional. Headnotes† Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 – s.3(2) – “In-house Procedure” – Paras 5(b), 7(ii) – Constitutional validity – Restatement of Values of Judicial Life dated 31st October, 1997 – Incident of fire at a store-room in the bungalow premises allotted to the petitioner- High Court Judge – Burnt currency notes discovered, and his conduct fell for scrutiny – “In-house Procedure” devised by the Supreme Court set in motion – Responses sought from the petitioner – Thereafter, three-member Committee constituted by the Chief Justice of India – Committee recorded that misconduct found proved is serious enough to call for initiation of proceedings for removal of the petitioner from his office – In terms of the Procedure, the CJI forwarded the report of the Committee to the President and Prime Minister – Petitioner then filed writ petition being aggrieved by the Procedure to the extent it permits the Committee to opine as to whether the * Author 1942 [2025] 8 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports misconduct calls for initiation of proceedings for removal; and that the Procedure permits the CJI to intimate the President and the Prime Minister that the misconduct warrants initiation of proceedings for removal and sought declaration that his removal was unconstitutional and ultra vires Art.124 and 218 and be quashed: Held: Conduct of the petitioner does not inspire much confidence to entertain the writ petition – Petitioner did not object to the photographs/video footage being uploaded, he participated in the inquiry without demur – Procedure could be seen as having a legal sanction – It is fallacious to argue that the Procedure is a parallel and extra-constitutional mechanism for removal of a Judge – In- house inquiry or its report forming part of the Procedure in itself does not lead to removal of a Judge, unlike the constitutionally ordained Procedure – Thus, the in-house inquiry is not a removal mechanism in the first place, much less an extra-constitutional mechanism – Argument that para 5(b) contravenes the constitutional scheme for removal of Judges by taking recourse to Art.124 is unsustainable – No reason to hold that para 5(b) of the Procedure in any manner transgresses or is in conflict with any constitutional provision – Right from the constitution of the Committee till intimations were given to the President and the Prime Minister by the CJI-its neither been shown nor is it a fact proved that either the CJI constituted Committee or the CJI acted in any manner in deviation of the Procedure, except when the photographs/video footage were uploaded on the website of the Supreme Court – As regards the requirement of para 7(ii) of the Procedure obliging the CJI to forward the report of the Committee to the President and the Prime Minister, no reason to hold paragraph 7(ii) of the Procedure as infringing either any provision of the Constitution or the concept of separation of powers – Constitution of India – Art.14, 32, 121, 124, 211, 217, 218, 141 – Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. [Paras 100-125] Constitution of India – Art.32 – Maintainability/Entertainability of the writ petition considering conduct of petitioner-High Court Judge as distinguished from waiver of rights: Held: Challenge to the constitutionality of paragraph 5(b) and 7(ii) of the Procedure has been raised in this writ petition only after the CJI had written to the President and the Prime Minister, while enclosing therewit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.