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

Negatives: (1) Opaqueness of enquiry reduces trust and makes judiciary seem shrouded in mystery. (2) Lack of transparency raises questions on effectiveness and objectivity of decisions. (3) Against separation of towers (Crito politica) as constitution defends and elaborates on impeachment of judges.

Negatives continued: Allegations of nepotism as 'colleagues question colleagues' biasphee claims of inquiry. Way forward / Suggestions for increasing effectiveness: (1) Release of discussions and reasons for actions except confidential & private details. (2) Involvement of outsiders in inquiring process to make it more transparent. (3) Fallivity: Restatement of India Values 1997 to avoid misconduct. The trust in judiciary & its fairness is paramount for effective justice on India.

Negatives (continued as header): (1) Opaqueness of enquiry reduces trust and makes judiciary seem shrouded in mystery. (2) Lack of transparency raises questions on effectiveness and objectivity of decisions. (3) Against separation of towers (Crito politica) as constitution defends and elaborates on impeachment of judges.