In-House Inquiry and FIR Lodging in Allegations Against Judges

Recent reports regarding the alleged recovery of unaccounted money from the residence of Justice Yashwant Verma, a judge of the Delhi High Court, have sent shock waves through the legal fraternity. With investigations into the matter underway, questions have emerged about the appropriate course of action, particularly regarding whether an FIR should be lodged and criminal proceedings initiated.

Can an FIR Be Lodged Against a Sitting Judge?

The simple answer is that no criminal proceedings can be initiated against a sitting judge unless the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is consulted, as outlined in the K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991) judgment. According to this ruling, the CJI must first be satisfied that the allegations are prima facie credible before advising the President of India to allow an FIR to be registered.

This process ensures that judges are protected from frivolous prosecutions and unnecessary harassment, which could otherwise stem from politically motivated or malicious complaints.

The In-House Procedure: A Confidential Enquiry Process

Over the years, the process of consulting the CJI and taking a decision on whether an FIR can be filed against a judge has evolved into what is now known as the 'In-House Procedure'. This confidential procedure was established to protect the institutional credibility of the judiciary while ensuring that credible allegations against judges are properly investigated.

The In-House Procedure was initially outlined in the 1991 Veeraswami case, where the Court dealt with allegations against a former Chief Justice of a High Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (PC Act). Two key issues arose:

1. Are judges public servants under the PC Act? Yes, judges of the High Courts and Supreme Court are considered public servants under the PC Act. Therefore, an FIR can be lodged against them for alleged offences under the Act.
   
   
2. Who grants sanction to initiate criminal prosecution? The President of India is the competent authority to grant such sanctions, acting on the advice of the CJI.
   

The CJI’s Role in Protecting Judicial Independence

The judgment also emphasized the importance of consulting the CJI before initiating any criminal proceedings against a sitting judge. This is intended to prevent the judicial system from being compromised by frivolous or politically motivated accusations. In essence, the CJI acts as a safeguard to ensure that a judge is not subject to unnecessary harassment or biased prosecution, especially when the judge’s decisions may go against governmental interests.

The Role of the CJI and the President in Judicial Misconduct Cases

As per the Veeraswami judgment, the President of India must consult the CJI before granting sanction for the prosecution of a judge. The CJI, in turn, must evaluate the available materials and determine whether the allegations warrant the filing of an FIR. If the CJI deems it appropriate, the President must act according to the CJI’s advice.

The CJI’s advice is binding—if the CJI determines that the case does not warrant prosecution, the President cannot grant sanction to proceed with the case. This safeguards judges from harassment while still ensuring that valid allegations are appropriately investigated.

In-House Enquiry Procedure Explained

The In-House Procedure provides a confidential process for investigating complaints against judges. This procedure, as outlined in the Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee (1995) case and further clarified in the 2015 Additional District and Sessions v. Registrar General case, involves several steps:

1. Initial Complaint Handling: The complaint is first reviewed by the Chief Justice of the High Court (CJ), who conducts a confidential enquiry to determine if the complaint is serious enough to warrant further investigation.
   
   
2. Consultation with the CJI: If the CJ believes that the allegations are credible, they will consult the CJI and present all relevant information.
   
   
3. Formation of a Committee: If the CJI agrees that the matter requires further investigation, a three-member committee is formed. The committee consists of two Chief Justices from other High Courts and one judge from the concerned High Court. This committee conducts the inquiry into the allegations, ensuring natural justice is followed.
   
   
4. Report Submission: The committee submits its report to the CJI, who will decide the next course of action. If the committee finds substance in the allegations, it may advise the judge to resign or retire voluntarily. If the judge refuses, the CJI may advise the High Court Chief Justice to stop assigning judicial work to the concerned judge.
   

When the Allegations Do Not Warrant Removal

If the committee finds that there is misconduct but the nature of the misconduct is not serious, it may choose to advise the judge on how to improve their conduct without recommending removal from office.

Transparency and Public Disclosure

Despite the In-House Procedure’s importance, transparency remains a significant issue. In the case of Indira Jaising v. Registrar General, the Supreme Court ruled that the inquiry reports made under this procedure should remain confidential. The Court noted that releasing such reports could harm the institution and lead to unnecessary media trials.

However, critics argue that this lack of public disclosure of the inquiry findings fosters skepticism and diminishes the public's faith in judicial accountability.

Conclusion

While the In-House Procedure ensures that judges are protected from frivolous or politically motivated allegations, the lack of a clear mechanism for public disclosure of inquiry findings continues to raise concerns. A fair and transparent procedure, with appropriate safeguards, is crucial for restoring public confidence in the judiciary, particularly when such serious allegations are made against sitting judges.

This ongoing debate highlights the tension between protecting judicial independence and ensuring transparency and accountability in the judicial system.