Critically examine the 'in-house procedure' adopted by the Apex Court to inquire into allegations of misconduct against judges of constitutional courts in India.

Recent case of beset pike of such found at residence of Justifying High court judge [led] to in-house procedure to inquire into allegations of misconduct. In-house procedure benefits: 1) Detailed enquiry article media glare [sensationalization of news] 2) Following the standardized operating procedure laid down by the Judges Inquiry Act (1968) 3) Composition from judiciary itself 4) Following principle of natural justice - hearing the accused Criticism of in-house inquiry: 1) Lack of accountability when judicial itself completing inquiry 2) In-house inquiry suffers from lack of transparency 3) Creates impedium to inquire - ambivalence was against constitutional powers to judiciary 4) Lack of details on other allegations of irregularities by the accused in question Way forward [Clear framework guidelines for enquiry into misconduct of judges 1) Implementation of vedesi code of conduct for judges 2) Constitutional experts law proposed 3) Expanding grounds of general of budgeted from present period [unclear/illegible] 4) Inclusion other misconduct for enquiry [setting judge accused hotly/persist/separately] 5) Inclusion of members from executives and legislature in the enquiry procedure 6) Detailed background vetting of individual before elevation to higher judiciary As said - (General with should be above suspicion?). Amiably conduct of higher judiciary judges should be beyond suspicion to ensure legitimacy in public eyes