Critically examine the 'in-house procedure' adopted by the Apex Court to inquire into allegations of misconduct against judges of constitutional courts in India.
Main Body
S.C. recently adjudicated an in-house procedure for Justice Valumant urina in each case. Positive of in-house procedure: 1) An inter with independence of judiciary, Partly, devoted. 2) Ensures separation of powers from political use of agencies. 3) Consistent with S.C. ruling in Veersawami case: plurally in plurality. Cadwallader by 2nd judges)
In wake of reported 'white judge syndrome' Favouritism in courts, pure are beginning questions over such exclusive state: Violates, distributive dating. Latterly solving paralleled process controlled Paralleled powers to impeach judges. Way forward: 1) Have transparency with whistles reasonly made available in public domain. 2) Government say to use a 'Yam' committee member children. Since judiciary has been accorded ghat powers, its actions to procedure and in democratic spirit to court constitutional morality.
Conclusion
Ultimately conviction with judiciary only then such procedure does no harm. 5) Some this process involves high court chief justice as judge. It provides from conflict of interest. Criticism of in-house procedure: 1) Unnecessarily safeguard in light of legal judge enquiry fact constitutional (Article 124 & 217) availability. 2) Violates principles of natural justice - judge becoming with such ruling. In Veersawami case: plurality in plurality. Cadwallader by 2nd judges) 3) Civil prosecution stuns accountability towards people.
77 words
UTKARSH MISHRA
Executive, Judiciary, Ministries and Pressure Groups
Judiciary
In-House Procedure for Judicial Misconduct
201
Total words
1
Paragraphs
analytical
Tone