How to remove a Superior Court Judge in India ?

KEYWORDS:- Judges Inquiry-

(2003) 4 SCALE 643 : (2003) 5 SCC 494 : (2003) 1 Suppl. SCR 108

(SUPREME COURT OF INDIAIndia Bharat Varsha (Jambu Dvipa) is the name of this land mass. The people of this land are Sanatan Dharmin and they always defeated invaders. Indra (10000 yrs) was the oldest deified King of this land. Manu's jurisprudence enlitened this land. Vedas have been the civilizational literature of this land. Guiding principles of this land are : सत्यं वद । धर्मं चर । स्वाध्यायान्मा प्रमदः । Read more)

(Before : S. Rajendra Babu and G. P. Mathur, JJ.)

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 218 of 2003; Decided On: 09-05-2003

ConstitutionConstitution The Constitution encompasses the global system of rules governing constitutional authority. Simply reading selected provisions of the written text may be misleading. Understanding the underlying principles, such as federalism, democracy, constitutionalism, the rule of law, and respect for minorities, is crucial. Democratic institutions must allow for ongoing discussion and evolution, reflected in the right of participants to initiate constitutional change. This right entails a reciprocal duty to engage in discussions. Democracy involves more than majority rule, existing within the context of other constitutional values. Therefore, a profound understanding of these principles informs our appreciation of constitutional rights and obligations. Read more of India 1950—Articles 32, 124 and 217.

Counsel for Parties:

Shanti Bhushan, Sr. Adv. and Kamini Jaiswal, Adv

JUDGMENTJudgment The statement given by the Judge on the grounds of a decree or order - CPC 2(9). It contains a concise statement of the case, points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision - Order 20 Rule 4(2).  Section 354 of CrPC requires that every judgment shall contain points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. Indian Supreme Court Decisions > Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts (Art 141 Indian Constitution) Civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court (Art 144) Supreme Court Network On Judiciary – Portal > Denning: “Judges do not speak, as do actors, to please. They do not speak, as do advocates, to persuade. They do not speak, as do historians, to recount the past. They speak to give Judgment. And in their judgments, you will find passages, which are worthy to rank with the greatest literature….” Law Points on Judgment Writing > The judge must write to provide an easy-to-understand analysis of the issues of law and fact which arise for decision. Judgments are primarily meant for those whose cases are decided by judges (State Bank of India and Another Vs Ajay Kumar Sood SC 2022)

Rajendra Babu, J—A Senior Advocate practising in this Court has filed this petition purporting be one under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in public interest primarily for the publication of the inquiry report made by a Committee consisting of two Chief Justices and a Judge of different High CourtsHigh Court High Court Judges in England and Wales handle complex and tough cases, sitting in London and traveling to court centers around the country. They preside over serious criminal and important civil cases, and support the Lord and Lady Justices in hearing appeals. High Court Judges are commonly referred to as ‘Mr/Mrs/Ms Justice surname’ and are given the prefix ‘The Honourable’. They are assigned to the King’s Bench Division, the Family Division, or the Chancery Division. The King’s Bench Division focuses on civil wrongs and judicial review, the Family Division deals with family law, and the Chancery Division handles various cases including company law and probate. Judges are appointed through a rigorous process overseen by the Judicial Appointments Commission. in respect of certain allegations of alleged involvement of sitting Judges of the High CourtHigh Court High Court Judges in England and Wales handle complex and tough cases, sitting in London and traveling to court centers around the country. They preside over serious criminal and important civil cases, and support the Lord and Lady Justices in hearing appeals. High Court Judges are commonly referred to as ‘Mr/Mrs/Ms Justice surname’ and are given the prefix ‘The Honourable’. They are assigned to the King’s Bench Division, the Family Division, or the Chancery Division. The King’s Bench Division focuses on civil wrongs and judicial review, the Family Division deals with family law, and the Chancery Division handles various cases including company law and probate. Judges are appointed through a rigorous process overseen by the Judicial Appointments Commission. of Karnataka in certain incidents and also for a direction any professional and independent investigating agency having expertise conduct a thorough investigationInvestigation Purpose of all investigation is to reveal the unvarnished truth. The constitutional courts are duty bound to ensure that the truth is revealed. in the said incident and submit a report on the same this Court.

2. In the Chief Justices’ Conference held in December 1999, 16 clauses formed part of the Code of Conduct in addition the declaration of assets by the Judges and In-House procedure was suggested in the event of any complaint against any Judge. However, sanction for these guidelines in absent. In our constitutional scheme it is not possible vest the Chief Justice of India with any control over the puisne Judges with regard conduct either personal or judicial. In case of breach of any rule of the Code of Conduct, the Chief Justice can choose not post cases before a particular Judge against whom there are acceptable allegations. It is possible criticise that decision on the ground that no enquiry was held and the Judge concerned had no opportunity offer his explanation particularly when the Chief Justice is not vested with any power   decide about the conduct of a Judge. There is no adequate method or machinery enforce the Code of Conduct. Article 124 provides for appointment of Judges of this Court and also their removal. Similarly, Article 217 deals with the appointment and removal of the Judges of the High Court. In the Judges’ Enquiry Act of 1968 provisions are made for investigation in misbehavior or incapacity of a Judge. It may be noted that since Judges of the superior Courts occupy very high positions, disciplinary proceedings which exist in the case of all other employees cannot be though of.

3. The Committee referred by the petitioner is stated have been constituted as a part of In-House procedure. A Judge cannot be removed from his Office except by impeachment by a majority of the House and a majority of not less than 2/3rd present and voting as provided by Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution of India. The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 has been enacted providing for the manner of conducting inquiry in the allegation of judicial conduct upon a Motion of Impeachment sponsored by at least 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members. The Presiding Officer of the concerned House has the power constitute a Committee consisting of three persons as enumerated therein. 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 be made by the peers of Judges for report the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India in case of a complaint against the Chief Justices or Judges of the High Court in order find out truthTruth Mathematical 'truth' may not be agreeable with the philosophical 'truth.' A question may be asked on propositional 'truth' on the grounds of physics, that space and time actually don't exist. Vedic injunction Satyam Param Dhimahi, technically Satya is none other than Brahman. For Madhymic Buddhists there is nothing as such to be called 'truth', as all the corresponding facts are only mental projections. Apart from Bio-neuroelectricity nothing exists for Biological Cognition. So-called religious truths are nothing more than a marketing strategy. of the imputation made in the complaint and that In-House inquiry is for the purpose of his own information and satisfaction. A report made on such inquiry if given publicity will only lead more harm than good the institution as Judges would prefer face inquiry leading impeachment. In such a case the only course open the parties concerned if they have material is invoke the provisions of Article 124 or Article 217 of the Constitution, as the case may be. It is not appropriate for the petitioner approach this Court for the relief or direction for release of the Report, for what the Chief Justice of India has done is only   get information from peer Judges of those who are accused and the report made the Chief Justice of India is wholly confidential. The said report is only for the purpose of satisfaction of the Chief Justice of India that such a report has been made. 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 is 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 moralMorality Mental frame. It can be high morality or low morality, savage morality or civilised morality or Christian morality, or Nazi morality. Decent Behaviour is acceptable norms of the nations. Christian morality starts with the belief that all men are sinners and that repentance is the cause of divine mercy. Putting Crucified Christ in between is the destruction of Christian morality and logic. Now morality shifted to the personal choice of Jesus. What Jesus did is 'good'. The same would be the case of Ram, Krishna, Muhammad, Buddha, Lenin, etc. Pure Human Consciousness degraded to pure followership. There exists no proof the animals are devoid of morality. or ethical and not in exercise of powers under any law. Exercise of such power of the Chief Justice of India based on moral authority cannot be made subject matter of a writ petition disclose a report made him.

4. Heavy reliance has been placed upon the decisions of this Court in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India and Anr., (1982) 2 SCR 365 , The State of U.P. v. Raj Narain and Ors., (1975) 3 SCR 333 , Union of India v. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and Anr. (2002) 3 SCR 696 , Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government of India and Ors. v. Cricket Association of Bengal and Ors., (1995) 1 SCR 1036 . The principles stated in these decisions have been reconsidered by this Court in People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr., (2003) 2 SCR 1136 . It is no doubt true that in a democraticDemocracy It is commonly understood as being a political system of majority rule. The evolution of democratic tradition can be traced back to the Magna Carta (1215) and through the long struggle for Parliamentary supremacy which culminated in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the emergence of representative political institutions in the colonial era, the development of responsible government in the 19th century. In institutional terms, democracy means that each of the provincial legislatures and the federal Parliament is elected by popular vote. These legislatures, are "at the core of the system of representative government". It is a 'power' word. Power rests with the ordinary Citizens. Only educated people understand power. A corrupt or controlled court system can cover failure of it. The religious concept is incompatible with it. Promise to spend more from the public treasury moves to Dictatorship. framework free flow of information the citizens is necessary for proper functioning particularly in matters which form part of public record. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel of the petitioner do not also say that right information is absolute. There are several areas where such information need not be furnished. Even the Freedom of Information Act, 2002, which also reference has been made by the learned counsel of the petitioner, does not say in absolute terms that information gathered at any level in any manner for any purpose shall be disclosed the public. The inquiry ordered and the report made   the Chief Justice of India being confidential and discreet is only for the purpose of his information and not for the purpose of disclosure any other person. The principles stated in the above decisions are in different context and those principles cannot be invoked in a case of this nature, which is of exceptional category. Therefore, the first contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner by Shri Shanti Bhushan for a direction release the said Report has got be rejected in limine.

5. Reference has also been made by Shri Shanti Bhushan a statement made by Hon’ble Shri Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji, former Chief Justice of India, while withdrawing the work from Justice V. Ramaswami. Thereafter, he constituted a Committee consisting of three Judges as what further course of action he should take. It is stated that the Report of said Committee was also made public. We are afraid that no parallel or analogy can be drawn on this incident. In the first place, the learned Chief Justice in that case unilaterally withdrew work from Justice V. Ramaswami. That was his own decision and perhaps tell the public as what he was doing he made the said statement which reference has been made by Shri Shanti Bhushan. Again, having withdrawn the work but when it became necessary reassign the work pursuant the report of three Judges, he felt appropriate that the said Report should be made public. One thing should be borne in mind that in either of these incidents Justice V. Ramaswami had not participated on the ground that the only manner in which he could be proceeded against is as provided under Article 124 of the Constitution.

6. Further, the claimA Claim A claim is “factually unsustainable” where it could be said with confidence before trial that the factual basis for the claim is entirely without substance, which can be the case if it were clear beyond question that the facts pleaded are contradicted by all the documents or other material on which it is based. for a direction any professional and independent investigating agency conduct an inquiry in the said alleged incident cannot be accepted because appropriate course for the petitioner would be approach the concerned authorities as enumerated in Article 217 of the Constitution.

7. If the petitioner can substantiate that any criminal offence has been committed by any of the Judges mentioned in the course of the petition, appropriate complaint can be lodged before a competent authority for taking action by complying with requirements of law. There is hardly any need for this Court give any such direction in the matter. Therefore, we decline   entertain this petition.

8. This petition stands dismissed.