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

SC has an in-house procedure to deal with complaints against judges to uphold the independency of judiciary; In house procedure - 1997 guidelines by SC have demised the procedure - A complaint is made to CJI about SCInday or HC CJ; A complaint about other judges of HC are made to HC CJ; once CSI or CSHC and convinced that - the complaint has merit, if will ask the said judge to respond - [natural justice - ample alternation system to be heard]

If the judge's response is not convincing the CJI may from a committee of judges; CSI will decide if judges to head part of committee (master of the roster); CSI gogni - appointed himself as chair of committee against sexual harassment case; Based on the recommendation of committee, the CSI will recommend impeachment of judge to Parliament, where judge's Verma case; In parliament, judge is imposed if found guilty; Critical examinations; Against the checks of balance principle in No role of executive/legislature (in the initial stage); Concentration of power in chief justice (master of the roster); Nominating self against principal of can't be judge in own case - self-incrimination.

So far, no judge has been found guilty despite allegations (Thus, shows rigidity of the process); Such cases, erode the trust of judiciary as protector of freedom & guaranteed of fundamental rights; Solutions - Allowing other 2 pillars to have a role - Transparent & open house proceedings - more proactive sole another than reactive - SOPs and guidelines of conduct be clearly delineated - Reform Judges Enquiry Act 1968 to allow more robust mechanism

so far, no judge has been found guilty despite allegations (thus, shows rigidity of the powers) such cases, under the tenant of judiciary as protector of freedom & guarantor of fundamental rights.