Facts of the Case
A High Court Judge is alleged to have accumulated huge unaccounted wealth during his service. The allegations indicate possible misconduct and corruption, which may amount to behavior unbecoming of a judge. However, judges of High Courts enjoy constitutional protection to ensure judicial independence and cannot be removed through ordinary departmental or disciplinary action. The matter requires action by constitutional authorities, including the Chief Justice of the High Court and the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
Issues in the Case
- Whether a High Court Judge can be investigated through normal disciplinary proceedings?
- What constitutional procedure exists for the removal of a High Court Judge?
- What are the roles and powers of the Chief Justice of the High Court and the Chief Justice of India in dealing with such allegations?
- Whether transfer of the Judge to another High Court is permissible and appropriate?
Legal Principles Covered
- Article 217 of the Constitution – Appointment and tenure of High Court Judges.
- A Judge holds office during good behavior.
- Article 124(4) read with Article 217(1)(b) – Removal of High Court Judges.
- A High Court Judge can only be removed on grounds of proved misbehavior or incapacity.
- Removal is done through impeachment by Parliament after an inquiry by a Judges Inquiry Committee.
- Not removable by the Chief Justice, President alone, or Executive order.
- The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968
- Provides the procedure for investigation.
- A complaint may be initiated by 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members, or by the Chief Justice of India when credible information is received.
- Inquiry Committee examines evidence and submits report to Parliament.
- Role of the Chief Justice of the High Court & Chief Justice of India
- Chief Justice of the High Court: May inform the CJI of the allegations and may withdraw judicial work from the accused Judge temporarily to protect judicial integrity.
- Chief Justice of India: Can order an in-house inquiry, and if prima facie guilt is found, recommend initiation of impeachment to Parliament.
- The CJI may also advise the Government to transfer the Judge to another High Court under Article 222, but transfer is not a punishment and does not replace the requirement of inquiry.
- Principle of Judicial Independence
- Ensures protection against arbitrary removal.
- However, allegations of corruption undermine public trust and require transparent constitutional handling.
Possible Judgment / Conclusion
The accused Judge cannot be removed by administrative order of either the Chief Justice of the High Court or the Chief Justice of India. The valid constitutional response is:
- The Chief Justice of the High Court may stop assigning judicial work and report the matter to the Chief Justice of India.
- The Chief Justice of India may conduct an in-house inquiry, and if allegations are found credible, recommend starting impeachment proceedings as per Article 124(4) and the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968.
- Transfer of the Judge to another High Court may also be considered, but this does not substitute removal.
Thus, removal can occur only through Parliamentary impeachment, not through executive or judicial disciplinary action.
About lawgnan
Explore the constitutional process for removing a High Court Judge accused of misconduct or corruption. At Lawgnan.in, learn how Articles 124(4) and 217 ensure judicial independence while allowing accountability through Parliamentary impeachment under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. Understand the roles of the Chief Justice of the High Court and the Chief Justice of India in handling such sensitive allegations, including in-house inquiries and possible transfers under Article 222. Visit Lawgnan.in for in-depth explanations of judicial ethics, impeachment procedures, and the balance between integrity and independence in India’s judiciary.
