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

Recently, Justice Veema was found with lakhs of cash in his house to which court launched "in-house procedure". Examination: 1) Independence of judiciary to govern its own process and misconduct. 2) Ensure fair procedure in line with 'natural justice'. Justice Veema was given chance to submit his proposition. 3) In line with Bangalore Principle 2001 which empowers judiciary to govern misconduct. 4) If other organs interfered it would lead to breach of Separation of Powers (?). Wisdom of judges and fairness cannot be questioned. 6) 'In house procedure' will lead to quick inquiry. 7) Transfer of alleged judged to other court will ensure fairness.

Criticism: 1) Imprison in Misgoti: BR Ambedkar was against judges governing their own conduct and appointment. 2) Checks and balances by other organs on judiciary. 3) Unfairness in procedure: as case of corruption may tarnish image of judiciary. 4) Breach of separation of power because 'investigating power' is with executive and not judiciary. 5) May justice perpetrate corruption in the organ. 6) Public trust on judiciary under Scrutiny due to inhance injuring. 7) General allegation case on ex-CJI.