# 2025 INSC 943

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 943
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-08-07
- **Bench:** Dipankar Datta, Augustine George Masih
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/2025-insc-943-38654
- **Pages:** 56

## Headnote

Issue arose as to whether the writ petition be entertained at all
having regard to the conduct of the petitioner-High Court Judge;
does the In-house Procedure have legal sanction; is an inquiry
and the consequent report in terms of the Procedure (which could
be unfavourable to the Judge under probe) a parallel and extraconstitutional mechanism; does paragraph 5(b) of the Procedure
foul clauses (4) and (5) of Art.124 r/w. Arts.217 and 218 of the
Constitution or abrogate any Fundamental Right of a Judge of
a High Court; did the CJI/the Committee constituted by the CJI
act in terms of the Procedure or in deviation thereof; and is the
requirement of paragraph 7(ii) of the Procedure obliging the CJI
to forward the report of the Committee to the President and the
Prime Minister unconstitutional.
Headnotes†
Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 - s.3(2) - "In-house Procedure" -
Paras 5(b), 7(ii) - Constitutional validity - Restatement of Values
of Judicial Life dated 31st October, 1997 - Incident of fire at a
store-room in the bungalow premises allotted to the petitionerHigh Court Judge - Burnt currency notes discovered, and his
conduct fell for scrutiny - "In-house Procedure" devised by
the Supreme Court set in motion - Responses sought from the
petitioner - Thereafter, three-member Committee constituted
by the Chief Justice of India - Committee recorded that
misconduct found proved is serious enough to call for initiation
of proceedings for removal of the petitioner from his office -
In terms of the Procedure, the CJI forwarded the report of the
Committee to the President and Prime Minister - Petitioner
then filed writ petition being aggrieved by the Procedure to
the extent it permits the Committee to opine as to whether the
* Author
1942
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
misconduct calls for initiation of proceedings for removal; and
that the Procedure permits the CJI to intimate the President
and the Prime Minister that the misconduct warrants initiation
of proceedings for removal and sought declaration that his
removal was unconstitutional and ultra vires Art.124 and 218
and be quashed:
Held: Conduct of the petitioner does not inspire much confidence
to entertain the writ petition - Petitioner did not object to the
photographs/video footage being uploaded, he participated in the
inquiry without demur - Procedure could be seen as having a legal
sanction - It is fallacious to argue that the Procedure is a parallel
and extra-constitutional mechanism for removal of a Judge - Inhouse inquiry or its report forming part of the Procedure in itself
does not lead to removal of a Judge, unlike the constitutionally
ordained Procedure - Thus, the in-house inquiry is not a removal
mechanism in the first place, much less an extra-constitutional
mechanism - Argument that para 5(b) contravenes the constitutional
scheme for removal of Judges by taking recourse to Art.124 is
unsustainable - No reason to hold that para 5(b) of the Procedure
in any manner transgresses or is in conflict with any constitutional
provision - Right from the constitution of the Committee till
intimations were given to the President and the Prime Minister by
the CJI-its neither been shown nor is it a fact proved that either
the CJI constituted Committee or the CJI acted in any manner in
deviation of the Procedure, except when the photographs/video
footage were uploaded on the website of the Supreme Court - As
regards the requirement of para 7(ii) of the Procedure obliging
the CJI to forward the report of the Committee to the President
and the Prime Minister, no reason to hold paragraph 7(ii) of the
Procedure as infringing either any provision of the Constitution
or the concept of separation of powers - Constitution of India -
Art.14, 32, 121, 124, 211, 217, 218, 141 - Judges (Inquiry) Act,
1968. [Paras 100-125]
Constitution of India - Art.32 - Maintainability/Entertainability
of the writ petition considering conduct of petitioner-High
Court Judge as distinguished from waiver

## Text

_Characters 0–39,966 of 128,661. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39966 for what follows._

[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1941 : 2025 INSC 943
XXX
v.
The Union of India & Others
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 699 of 2025)
07 August 2025
[Dipankar Datta* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as to whether the writ petition be entertained at all
having regard to the conduct of the petitioner-High Court Judge;
does the In-house Procedure have legal sanction; is an inquiry
and the consequent report in terms of the Procedure (which could
be unfavourable to the Judge under probe) a parallel and extraconstitutional mechanism; does paragraph 5(b) of the Procedure
foul clauses (4) and (5) of Art.124 r/w. Arts.217 and 218 of the
Constitution or abrogate any Fundamental Right of a Judge of
a High Court; did the CJI/the Committee constituted by the CJI
act in terms of the Procedure or in deviation thereof; and is the
requirement of paragraph 7(ii) of the Procedure obliging the CJI
to forward the report of the Committee to the President and the
Prime Minister unconstitutional.
Headnotes†
Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 - s.3(2) - "In-house Procedure" -
Paras 5(b), 7(ii) - Constitutional validity - Restatement of Values
of Judicial Life dated 31st October, 1997 - Incident of fire at a
store-room in the bungalow premises allotted to the petitionerHigh Court Judge - Burnt currency notes discovered, and his
conduct fell for scrutiny - "In-house Procedure" devised by
the Supreme Court set in motion - Responses sought from the
petitioner - Thereafter, three-member Committee constituted
by the Chief Justice of India - Committee recorded that
misconduct found proved is serious enough to call for initiation
of proceedings for removal of the petitioner from his office -
In terms of the Procedure, the CJI forwarded the report of the
Committee to the President and Prime Minister - Petitioner
then filed writ petition being aggrieved by the Procedure to
the extent it permits the Committee to opine as to whether the
* Author
1942
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
misconduct calls for initiation of proceedings for removal; and
that the Procedure permits the CJI to intimate the President
and the Prime Minister that the misconduct warrants initiation
of proceedings for removal and sought declaration that his
removal was unconstitutional and ultra vires Art.124 and 218
and be quashed:
Held: Conduct of the petitioner does not inspire much confidence
to entertain the writ petition - Petitioner did not object to the
photographs/video footage being uploaded, he participated in the
inquiry without demur - Procedure could be seen as having a legal
sanction - It is fallacious to argue that the Procedure is a parallel
and extra-constitutional mechanism for removal of a Judge - Inhouse inquiry or its report forming part of the Procedure in itself
does not lead to removal of a Judge, unlike the constitutionally
ordained Procedure - Thus, the in-house inquiry is not a removal
mechanism in the first place, much less an extra-constitutional
mechanism - Argument that para 5(b) contravenes the constitutional
scheme for removal of Judges by taking recourse to Art.124 is
unsustainable - No reason to hold that para 5(b) of the Procedure
in any manner transgresses or is in conflict with any constitutional
provision - Right from the constitution of the Committee till
intimations were given to the President and the Prime Minister by
the CJI-its neither been shown nor is it a fact proved that either
the CJI constituted Committee or the CJI acted in any manner in
deviation of the Procedure, except when the photographs/video
footage were uploaded on the website of the Supreme Court - As
regards the requirement of para 7(ii) of the Procedure obliging
the CJI to forward the report of the Committee to the President
and the Prime Minister, no reason to hold paragraph 7(ii) of the
Procedure as infringing either any provision of the Constitution
or the concept of separation of powers - Constitution of India -
Art.14, 32, 121, 124, 211, 217, 218, 141 - Judges (Inquiry) Act,
1968. [Paras 100-125]
Constitution of India - Art.32 - Maintainability/Entertainability
of the writ petition considering conduct of petitioner-High
Court Judge as distinguished from waiver of rights:
Held: Challenge to the constitutionality of paragraph 5(b) and 7(ii)
of the Procedure has been raised in this writ petition only after
the CJI had written to the President and the Prime Minister, while
enclosing therewith copy of the Report of the Committee together
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
1943
XXX v. The Union of India & Others
with the Petitioner's response dated 6th May, 2025, as required
by the Procedure - According to the petitioner, uploading of the
photographs/video footage, caused him immense harm, not only did
it lower his reputation, he was convicted in the public eye without
even a preliminary inquiry - However, the conduct of the petitioner
to acquiesce to such uploading, participate in the inquiry without
demur, and to question such uploading only after the Committee
submitted its report to the CJI recording that there was sufficient
substance in the allegations, baffles this Court - Submission
that such uploading has had the effect of vitiating the enquiry is
untenable - Though uploading of incriminating evidence available
against a Judge under probe in the public domain is not a step
which the Procedure requires and while such uploading may not be
considered to be proper, it is indeed fait accompli - No benefit can
be claimed because of such uploading of the incriminating evidence
at this stage, once in a duly constituted inquiry findings have
been recorded as regards the failures/omissions of the Petitioner
to abide by the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life - If indeed
any fault were found in the Procedure and questions were to be
raised, the Petitioner ought not to have waited for completion of
the fact-finding inquiry set in motion by the CJI - Conduct of the
Petitioner, does not inspire much confidence to entertain the writ
petition. [Paras 100, 105-107]
Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 - s.3(2) - "In-house Procedure" -
Paras 5(b), 7(ii) - Does the In-house Procedure have legal
sanction - Whether an inquiry and the consequent report
in terms of the Procedure (which could be unfavourable to
the Judge under probe) a parallel and extra-constitutional
mechanism:
Held: Procedure could be seen as having a legal sanction -
Procedure has its roots in the law declared by this Court u/Art.141
of the Constitution - 'Law for the time being in force' in subsection (2) of s.3 of the Protection Act would include law laid down
by this Court and that the term 'otherwise' read in conjunction with
'such action', appearing in the said sub-section, is wide enough
to encompass measures that the Procedure contemplates - It
is not the law that once the Committee constituted by the CJI
records in its report that the conduct of the Judge under probe
warrants initiation of proceedings for his removal and the CJI,
in turn, upon accepting such report furnishes the same together
1944
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
with his recommendation, if any, to the President and the Prime
Minister, that would invariably in all cases result in initiation of
proceedings u/Art.124(4) and (5) of the Constitution (for Supreme
Court Judges) and Arts.217 and 218 read with Art.124 (for High
Court Judges) and the inquiry under the Inquiry Act - Report or
no report, recommendation or no recommendation, whatever
is the case, the Parliament's power to initiate proceedings for
removal of a Judge for alleged misbehaviour or incapacity remains
unfettered - Even though there could be a case where good
grounds for initiation of proceedings do exist, the Parliament
may in its wisdom elect not to go ahead to initiate proceedings
for removal - Contrarily, even if it is reported by the Committee
under the Procedure that there exists any of the two situations
[para 5(a) or 5(c)] and the CJI, accepting such report, does not
make any recommendation, nothing prevents the Parliament to
initiate proceedings for removal if for reasons aliunde it considers
necessary so to do - Notably, if the Parliament, despite strong
indication of a Judge either having indulged in misbehaviour or
suffering from incapacity, does not initiate any proceedings for
removal, no proceeding in a judicial forum would perhaps lie
for activating the Parliament to have such Judge removed from
office - Power, competence, authority and jurisdiction of the
Parliament to decide what is in the best interests of the nation
is left untrammelled by the Procedure; hence, it is fallacious to
argue that the Procedure is a parallel and extra-constitutional
mechanism for removal of a Judge - Yet again, the in-house
inquiry or its report forming part of the Procedure in itself does
not lead to removal of a Judge, unlike the constitutionally
ordained Procedure - Thus, the in-house inquiry is not a removal
mechanism in the first place, much less an extra-constitutional
mechanism. [Paras 110-117]
Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 - s.3(2) - "In-house Procedure" -
Paras 5(b), 7(ii) - Paragraph 5(b) of the Procedure, if foul
clauses (4) and (5) of Art.124 r/w. Art.217 and 218 of the
Constitution or abrogate any Fundamental Right of a Judge
of a High Court:
Held: Submission that para 5(b) contravenes the constitutional
scheme for removal of Judges by taking recourse to Art.124 is
unsustainable - Procedure that has been laid down in the Procedure
is fair and just which does not compromise judicial independence
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
1945
XXX v. The Union of India & Others
either, a basic feature of our Constitution - Judge by his conduct
of being fair and just is supposed to earn for himself as well as
the judiciary the trust and respect of the members of the bar as
well as the litigants and all other stakeholders - If a complaint
of misconduct committed by a Judge is received and if at an
inquiry conducted under the Procedure the allegations against
such a Judge are found to have sufficient substance, he cannot
claim any immunity-either by citing abrogation of his Fundamental
Rights or breach of the constitutional scheme for removal of a
Judge by initiating proceedings for impeachment-that his conduct
is not open to be commented upon by the Committee or even by
the CJI - No reason to hold that para 5(b) of the Procedure in
any manner transgresses or is in conflict with any constitutional
provision. [Paras 119, 120]
Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 - s.3(2) - In-house Procedure -
Whether CJI/Committee acted in terms of the Procedure or
in deviation thereof:
Held: Right from the constitution of the Committee till intimations
were given to the President and the Prime Minister by the CJI, it
has neither been shown nor is it a fact proved that either the CJI
constituted Committee or the CJI acted in any manner in deviation
of the Procedure, except when the photographs/video footage
were uploaded on the website of the Supreme Court - Placing
incriminating evidence available against a Judge under probe in
the public domain is not a measure provided in the Procedure,
either expressly or by implication - Inquiry under the Procedure
is for the information and satisfaction of the CJI and the report
of inquiry is confidential and, thus, such report cannot be made
public - Entire process under the Procedure is confidential having
ascertainment of truth as one of its objectives - Demands of being
fair and transparent, in such cases, have to yield to the confidential
nature of the process - Thus, uploading of the photographs/
video footage on the website of this Court cannot be viewed
as a necessary requirement of the "In-house Procedure", thus,
approved - However, nothing really turns on the uploading of the
photographs/video footage since the Petitioner, did not have any
grievance in relation thereto which is obvious from his failure to
question such uploading at an appropriate time thereby allowing
a situation to grow where the Court is faced with a fait accompli.
[Para 121]
1946
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 - s.3(2) - In-house Procedure -
Requirement of paragraph 7(ii) of the Procedure obliging the
CJI to forward the report of the Committee to the President
and the Prime Minister - Constitutionality:
Held: CJI, as the leader of the judiciary, apart from his various other
duties owes a duty to the people of the country to keep the justice
delivery system pure, clean and unpolluted - It is unreasonable
to even think that despite an incident of the present nature, the
CJI would wait for the Parliament to take action - It is up to the
Parliament whether or not to activate Art.124 - Left to him, the
CJI upon being informed of a Judge's remissness does have the
authority-moral, ethical and legal-to take such necessary action
as is warranted to keep institutional integrity intact - Keeping in
view such concerns and the legal position of the President being
the ultimate appointing authority of Judges and the Prime Minister
being the head of the Council of Ministers, upon whose aid and
advice the President acts under the Constitution, coupled with
receipt of complaints from the office of the President, the provision in
para 7(ii) of the Procedure requiring the CJI to write to the President
and the Prime Minister along with the report of the Committee
to be quite in order, legal and valid - Office of the CJI not to be
regarded as a post office that the report should only be routed
through the CJI without his observations - This Court is unaware
like the Petitioner of what the CJI remarked while forwarding the
Report of the Committee and the Petitioner's response dated 6th
May, 2025 to the President and the Prime Minister - However, if
the CJI has reiterated the finding of the Committee as contained in
the Report and recommended initiation of proceedings for removal
of the Petitioner from office, such a recommendation cannot be
impeached on any valid and legal ground - Notwithstanding that
the recommendation of the CJI carries much weight, one has to
realize that the intimation given by the CJI, under the Procedure,
is for the eyes of the President and the Prime Minister alone and
not anyone else - Thus, no reason to hold paragraph 7(ii) of the
Procedure as infringing either any provision of the Constitution or
the concept of separation of powers. [Paras 123-125]
Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 - s.3(2) - In-house Procedure"
devised by the Supreme Court in its Full Court meeting dated
15th December, 1999 through administrative resolution to deal
with complaints of misconduct or incapacity against sitting
Judges, both of the High Courts and the Supreme Court -
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
1947
XXX v. The Union of India & Others
Genesis and contents of the in-house Procedure - Discussed.
[Paras 41-47]
Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 - s.3(2) vis-à-vis In-house
Procedure - Applicability:
Held: Protection Act does not offend the constitutional scheme,
and, being in addition to the extant provisions, does not affect
the Supreme Court's authority to take such action, as deemed fit,
against a Judge of a High Court who is alleged to have indulged
in misconduct in terms of the Procedure - To address the growing
concern of incidents of misconduct, the Procedure has been craftily
designed to discipline Judges internally for such misconduct that is
sufficient to tarnish the dignity of his office as well as the institution
to which he belongs - CJI's discretion as to whether, where and
when to act, mindful of the substance in the complaints received,
would obviously be a regulated discretion; but, once the ball is
set rolling by the CJI, it must end with his recommendation/advice
to the President and the Prime Minister depending on what the
Committee records as its findings - With the advancement in
science and technology and all other spheres of work, it is quite
possible to bring to the CJI's notice how a particular Judge might
have conducted himself inappropriately calling for strict action -
Withdrawal of judicial work from a Judge is an extreme measure
that the Procedure expressly permits - There are other measures
too, which could be explored if Judges are found to deviate from
the Code of Conduct - Given that the only formal mechanism
for addressing judicial misbehaviour under the Constitution is
impeachment by Parliament, it must be remembered that not all
misbehaviour of Judges necessarily rise to the level of "proved
misbehaviour" attracting Arts. 217 and 218 r/w. clauses (4) and (5)
of Art. 124 - Constitution's silence on cases that do not rise to
the level of proven misbehaviour creates a significant structural
vulnerability, which has since been addressed by the Procedure -
Procedure acts as a check on Judges' unbridled freedom of action
and thereby seeks to prevent outcomes that could be harmful or
unjust - Under the present set-up, impeaching the Procedure
or any part thereof may itself be viewed as unreasonable and
unjustified. [Paras 71-85]
Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 - s.3(2) - In-house Procedure -
Nature of inquiry:
1948
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Held: Inquiry that is part of the In-house Procedure is designed
to be a fact-finding inquiry as distinguished from guilt-finding
inquiry, thus, akin to a preliminary inquiry that precedes regular
disciplinary proceedings against a delinquent employee - Once
the CJI constitutes the Committee, it is required to hold an inquiry
into the allegations contained in the complaint in the manner that
the Procedure ordains - Committee does have some leeway
to devise its own Procedure consistent with the principles of
natural justice - Though the Committee is not required to extend
opportunity of cross-examination of the persons who come before
it for giving their versions or opportunity to the Judge under probe
to be represented by a lawyer, the Judge must be called upon to
appear and given opportunity to have his say recorded - After
concluding the inquiry, Committee may conclude and report to
the CJI as regards the substance in the allegations contained in
the complaint - Given its very nature, the Committee by preparing
its report and recording its findings, effectively assists the CJI in
arriving at a conclusion as regards the proposed action in a given
case based thereon - Instant case falls within the second situation
where Committee has recorded an opinion that there is sufficient
substance in the allegations contained in the letter of the CJI and
the misconduct disclosed is so serious that it calls for initiation of
proceedings for removal of the petitioner-High Court Judge - Thus,
the nature of inquiry is preliminary, ad-hoc and not final as well as
not violative of any principle of natural justice. [Paras 88-91, 94]
Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 - Provisions relatable to removal of
a Judge of a High Court from office - Process of impeachment
of a Judge - Discussed. [Paras 28-40]
Judiciary - Chief Justice of India - Role of the CJI - Explanation:
Held: While the CJI is no doubt primus inter pares, first among
equals and also does not exercise powers of superintendence over
the High Courts and the Judges of the High Court, nonetheless,
the CJI bears a significant moral responsibility as the foremost
judicial officer to ensure that the judiciary of the country functions
in a transparent, efficient and constitutionally appropriate manner -
Although the CJI is the head of the institution, he too is not above
the law which is supreme; hence, utmost care to be taken to
ensure that any action of the CJI is not in deviation of the In-house
Procedure which permits the in-house inquiry to be undertaken.
[Paras 61, 69]
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
1949
XXX v. The Union of India & Others
Case Law Cited
C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee [1995] Supp. 3
SCR 319 : (1995) 5 SCC 457; Supreme Court Advocates-onRecord Assn. v. Union of India [2015] 13 SCR 1 : (2016) 5 SCC 1;
Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. Union of India [1964] 1 SCR 190 :
AIR 1964 SC 1854 - followed.
Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India [1991]
Supp. 2 SCR 1 : (1991) 4 SCC 699 - distinguished and held
inapplicable.
Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India [2003] Supp. 1 SCR 108 :
(2003) 5 SCC 494 - relied on.
Sahara India v. SEBI [2012] 12 SCR 256 : (2012) 10 SCC 603;
Additional District and Sessions Judge 'X' v. Registrar General,
High Court of Madhya Pradesh [2014] 13 SCR 300 : (2015) 4
SCC 91; P.D. Dinakaran (1) v. Judges Inquiry Committee [2011]
10 SCR 1064 : (2011) 8 SCC 380; K. Veeraswami v. Union of India
[1991] 3 SCR 189 : (1991) 3 SCC 655; D.C. Saxena (Dr) v. Hon'ble
The Chief Justice of India [1996] Supp. 3 SCR 677 : (1996) 5
SCC 216; State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand [1997] Supp. 6
SCR 1 : (1998) 1 SCC 1; Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerthakhar v.
State of Maharashtra [1996] Supp. 8 SCR 939 : (1997) 1 SCC
299; Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat [2013] 5 SCR 200 :
(2013) 4 SCC 301 - referred to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India; Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968; Judges (Protection)
Act, 1985.
List of Keywords
Proceedings for removal of a Judge; Impeachment; Fire at a storeroom; Burnt currency notes; Restatement of Values of Judicial
Life dated 31st October, 1997; "In-house Procedure"; Procedure
obliging the CJI to forward the report of the Committee to the
President and the Prime Minister; Fact-finding exercise; Legal
sanction; Fundamental Rights of the Judge of a High Court; No
waiver of Fundamental Right; Judicial independence; Basic feature
of Constitution; Misconduct committed by Judge; Photographs/
video footage uploaded on the website of Supreme Court; Fait
accompli; Guilt-finding inquiry; Principles of natural justice; Internal
1950
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
mechanism; CJIs recommendation for initiation of proceedings of
removal; Constitutional scheme; Separation of powers; Judicial
misbehaviour; Primus inter pares; Committee constituted by CJI;
Provisions relatable to removal of a Judge of a High Court from
office; Process of impeachment of a Judge; Role of the Chief
Justice of India.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 699
of 2025
Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Kapil Sibal, Mukul Rohatgi, Rakesh Dwivedi, Siddharth Luthra,
Sidddharth Aggarwal, Jayant Mehta, Sr. Advs., Ms. Stuti Gujral,
Ms. Manisha Singh, Vaibhav Niti, George Pothan Poothicote,
Ms. Jyoti Singh, Anurag Jain, Keshav Sehgal, Vishwajeet Singh,
Prakarsh Kumar, Tasnimul Hassan.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Dipankar Datta, J.
Preface
1.
A deeply anguished Judge of the Allahabad High Court1 has petitioned
this Court for enforcement of his Fundamental Rights under Articles
14 and 21 of the Constitution of India by invoking his Fundamental
Right to constitutional remedy guaranteed by Article 32 thereof.
2.
Lest any observation made by us denies the petitioner a level playing
field in any future proceedings that he might face, we would tread
the path cautiously and refer to, very briefly, only the bare facts
leading to presentation of this writ petition as well as deal with only
such of the several contentions, as urged, to the extent the same
are absolutely necessary for our decision.
1
Petitioner
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
1951
XXX v. The Union of India & Others
Facts
3.
Petitioner finds himself in an unsavoury situation. While the Petitioner
was a Judge of the Delhi High Court, there was an incident of fire at
a store-room in the bungalow premises allotted to him. On the date
of the incident, the Petitioner was away from home. In the process of
dousing the fire, certain burnt currency notes were discovered in the
store-room. Such discovery gave rise to suspicion that the Petitioner
may not have followed the universally accepted values of judicial life
including those included in the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life
dated 31st October, 1997; consequently, his conduct fell for scrutiny.
Without wasting time, the "In-house Procedure" devised by the
Supreme Court in its Full Court meeting dated 15th December, 19992
was set in motion. The Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court3 vide letter
dated 21st March, 2025 sought a response from the Petitioner. In his
response dated 22nd March, 2025, the Petitioner's defence, inter alia,
was that no cash was ever placed in the store-room by him or his
family members and he strongly denounced the suggestion that the
cash belonged to him or his family members. Petitioner also stated
that the same must have been planted in the store-room to frame
him. However, the Petitioner neither denied the incident of fire nor
discovery of the burnt currency notes. Upon receipt of the response,
the same was considered. Inter alia, on 22nd March, 2025, a threemember Committee4 was constituted by the Chief Justice of India5.
A press release of even date named the members of the Committee,
and also disclosed that the CJ, DHC was asked not to assign judicial
work to the Petitioner. At or about the same time, presumably on
the orders of the CJI, certain documents/photographs/video footage
linked to the fire incident and discovery of currency notes had been
placed in the public domain. On 24th March, 2025, the Collegium of
the Supreme Court recommended the Petitioner's repatriation to his
parent High Court. Immediately thereafter, the Committee set out to
accomplish the task assigned to it. The fire ravaged store-room was
inspected. Versions of several witnesses having some knowledge of
2
Procedure
3
CJ, DHC
4
Committee
5
CJI
1952
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
and/or relation with the incident of fire/discovery of burnt currency
notes were recorded by the Committee. Petitioner was furnished the
versions of the witnesses. Thereafter, he was afforded an opportunity
to state his case. An inquiry report6 dated 3rd May, 2025 of the
Committee followed. On the basis of appreciation of the materials
collected in course of the inquiry, the Committee recorded in the
Report of having found sufficient substance in the allegations raised
in the letter dated 22nd March, 2025 of the CJI. It was recorded by
the Committee that misconduct found proved is serious enough to
call for initiation of proceedings for removal of the Petitioner from his
office. Vide letter dated 4th May, 2025, the CJI gave the Petitioner
the option to resign or to seek voluntary retirement within 6th May,
2025, failing which the competent authorities would be intimated to
initiate action for removal. Petitioner responded on 6th May, 2025
seeking reconsideration of the letter dated 4th May, 2025 and more
time to submit a written representation upon thorough review of
the Report. At the same time, the Petitioner further expressed his
inability to either resign or seek voluntary retirement in the event
his prayers for grant of additional time and reconsideration were not
allowed. According to the Petitioner, acceptance of such advice could
imply acquiescence to a process and outcome that he considered
fundamentally unjust. Petitioner also urged that strict confidentiality
be maintained by all stakeholders. The prayers, apparently, were
not granted and a further press release of 8th May, 2025 came to
be issued recording that in terms of the Procedure, the CJI had
written to the nation's Hon'ble President and Hon'ble Prime Minister
and forwarded the Report of the Committee and the response of the
Petitioner dated 6th May, 2025. What exactly were the contents of
the CJI's letter is, however, unknown to the Petitioner as well as us.
4.
In the prevailing circumstances, the Petitioner presented this writ
petition on 17th July, 2025, claiming the following relief from the Court:
a.
Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring Paragraphs
5(b) and 7 of In-House Procedure dated 15.12.1999 to the
extent that it enables the In-House Committee to inquire and
comment on the existence of 'serious misconduct warranting
6
Report
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
1953
XXX v. The Union of India & Others
removal' and the Hon'ble CJI to intimate the same to the
Hon'ble President and the Hon'ble Prime Minister for initiating
proceedings for removal and other consequential action as
being unconstitutional and ultra vires.
b.
Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction declaring the
intimation by the Hon'ble CJI to the Hon'ble President and the
Hon'ble Prime Minister (as referred to in the Press Release
dated 08.05.2025) for initiation of action for removal as being
unconstitutional and ultra vires art 124 and 218 and quash the
same.
c.
Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction to quash and set
aside the Final Report dated 03.05.2025 submitted by the
Committee, and all consequential actions taken pursuant to
the same.
d.
Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Arguments for the Petitioner
5.
Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel, duly assisted by other
senior counsel, advanced arguments at length in support of the writ
petition. A brief note of submissions was also placed by Mr. Sibal
before the Court, which duly captures the points of challenge and
the contentions in support of the relief claimed.
6.
Mr. Sibal commenced his arguments by submitting that "it is a matter
of moment".
7.
According to Mr. Sibal, the Petitioner is aggrieved by the Procedure
to the extent it permits the Committee to opine as to whether the
misconduct calls for initiation of proceedings for removal. He is
also aggrieved because the Procedure permits the CJI to intimate
the President and the Prime Minister that the misconduct warrants
initiation of proceedings for removal.
8.
In course of his arguments, Mr. Sibal outlined what the Petitioner was
not challenging. While fairly admitting that the Procedure itself is a
valid in-house mechanism contemplated for the purpose of discipline
by self-regulation by the higher judiciary, Mr. Sibal laid challenge to
paragraphs 5(b) and 7 (ii) thereof on the ground that these are ultra
vires the Constitution violating Articles 124 and 218 thereof. It was
1954
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
also fairly admitted that even though the Committee's remit was to
conduct a fact-finding exercise, the subsequent recommendation
by the Committee regarding the necessity to initiate proceedings for
removal of a Judge is unconstitutional.
9.
Moving ahead, Mr. Sibal accepted that he did not see any wrong in
the CJI in advising the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court
not to allocate judicial work to the Judge under probe or the CJI's
authority to forward the report of the Committee to the President and
the Prime Minister along with intimation of the advice to the Chief
Justice of the concerned High Court not to allocate judicial work to
the concerned Judge.
10. While, however, confining the constitutional challenge to the validity of
paragraphs 5(b) and 7 (ii) of the Procedure, Mr. Sibal contended that
Articles 124 and 218 of the Constitution are the only provisions under
which a Judge of a High Court may be removed. In exercise of the
powers under Article 124(5), the Parliament has enacted the Judges
(Inquiry) Act, 19687. He argued that the constitutional provisions read
with the Inquiry Act constitute a complete and comprehensive code
which occupies the field of the process for removal.
11. Continuing further, Mr. Sibal stressed that the tenure of a High Court
Judge is protected by the Constitution, and such a Judge is subject
to the Constitution and the Constitution alone. Even Parliament
is not permitted to discuss the conduct of any Judge either of the
Supreme Court or of the High Courts except when a Motion for
presenting an address is admitted. Hence, any procedure/process
for removal, other than that provided for under Article 124, would
be unconstitutional. As per the constitutional scheme, removal of
a Judge from office is subject to the Judge being found guilty of
proved misbehaviour or incapacity in an inquiry conducted under
the Inquiry Act; however, the Procedure to the extent it could trigger
proceedings for removal, without being bound by the constitutional
rigours, is liable to be held ultra vires.
12. Mr. Sibal further argued that the removal process, set in motion
by the Procedure with the Committee being empowered to make
recommendation, lacks constitutional sanction or contemplation. As
against the safeguards provided in the Inquiry Act, such as framing
7
Inquiry Act, hereafter
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
1955
XXX v. The Union of India & Others
of charges, presentation of evidence in support of the charge(s),
statement of defence, cross-examination of witnesses, strict proof,
etc. - all of which are compliant with the overarching mandate of
Article 14 - the Procedure contemplates such procedure as may
be appropriate in the facts of a case. The Procedure does not
obligate the Committee to follow the codified or defined rules of
evidence and permits the Committee to adopt such procedure as
necessary, potentially leading to holding a Judge guilty, not just of
serious misconduct but also calling for his removal. Such process,
based only on a preliminary or prima facie view, where the Judge
is denied the procedural safeguards which are otherwise available
in consonance with due process, is wholly arbitrary and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution.
13. The report of the Committee, Mr. Sibal further contended, could only
be used by the CJI to take corrective measures within his domain.
It cannot possibly interfere with the process envisaged under Article
124. Separation of powers that is in-built in the Constitution demands
that the judicial institution remains clear of the constitutional process
undertaken for removal.
14. Finally, Mr. Sibal sought to again impress upon us that the Procedure
to the extent it permits the CJI to trigger the initiation of removal
process by the Parliament through his recommendation is bound
to have its own impact. Though termed as a recommendation or
advice, such recommendation/advice from a high constitutional
functionary such as the CJI would clearly be far more than being
merely persuasive and is bound to influence the decision making and
evaluation process. It would act as a virtual death knell for a Judge,
particularly based on a prima facie evaluation of the allegations.
Such process would also circumvent the constitutionally prescribed
mechanisms.
15. In any case, Mr. Sibal argued, uploading of the photographs/video
footage on the website of the Supreme Court together with the
Report of the Committee has the effect of convicting the Petitioner
even before the procedure under Article 124 has been initiated. Such
being the state of affairs, the powers of the CJI cannot extend to
making such a recommendation. Hence, paragraphs 5(b) and 7(ii)
of the Procedure need to be set aside not only being violative of
the constitutional scheme for removal of Judges but also because
1956
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
they deprive the Petitioner of equal protection of the laws, thereby
infringing his valuable right under Article 14 of the Constitution.
16. Having completed his address on the constitutional challenge, Mr.
Sibal placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Indira Jaising v.
Supreme Court of India 8 and Sahara India v. SEBI 9, to contend
that the allegations against the Petitioner and the correspondence
exchanged by and between him and the CJI as well as the evidence
(photographs/video footage), ought not to have been put in the
public domain. By so doing, not only has the good reputation of the
Petitioner as a Judge (which he built by years of dedicated work) been
tarnished, the public perception based on viewing of such evidence
led to an exercise which has held the Petitioner guilty even before
an inquiry according to fair procedure could commence and he being
afforded the opportunity to raise an effective defence. Highly critical
of uploading of the photographs/video footage on the website of this
Court, Mr. Sibal contended that the Petitioner's precious right under
Article 21 stood abrogated right from the inception.
17. Relying heavily on the decision of the Constitution Bench in SubCommittee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India10, Mr.
Sibal argued that the powers of the CJI in case of removal of a High
Court Judge stand restricted. It was pointed out that as the CJI has
no disciplinary control over Judges of the High Courts, the procedure
for removal is not akin to removal of a delinquent employee. The
CJI, it was contended, cannot have an authoritative say or partake
in the process, which is otherwise the preserve of the Parliament.
18. Referring to the decision in C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice
A.M. Bhattacharjee11, Mr. Sibal urged that the observations made
therein were only intended to fill the 'yawning gap between proved
misbehaviour and bad conduct inconsistent with the high office'. The
Procedure, however, reaches far and beyond filling the gap and, in
fact, attempts to kick-start the process under Article 124(5), which
is the sole prerogative of the Parliament.
8
(2003) 5 SCC 494
9
(2012) 10 SCC 603
10
(1991) 4 SCC 699
11
(1995) 5 SCC 457
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
1957
XXX v. The Union of India & Others
19. While concluding, Mr. Sibal prayed that paragraphs 5(b) and 7(ii) of the
Procedure be declared ultra vires. He also prayed for a declaration
that none including the Parliament be influenced either by the Report
of the Committee or the recommendation/advice of the CJI.
20. We heard Mr. Rohatgi, learned senior counsel assisting Mr. Sibal,
submit at the very end that the Petitioner ought to have been given
an opportunity of personal hearing by the CJI before making his
recommendation/tendering his advice to the President and the
Prime Minister. To support such submission, he referred to a similar
opportunity that was extended by the then CJI to a Judge of the
Calcutta High Court who also went through the same Procedure.
Non-grant of such opportunity, according to him, breached principles
of equality before law.
Proceedings before the Court
21. Although the challenge read with the prayers in the writ petition
relate to the constitutionality of the Procedure and the legality of
the inquiry conducted by the Committee together with its Report,
as part of the Procedure, Mr. Sibal rightly did not argue the second
point12 and restricted his arguments on the point of constitutionality.
22. It is placed on record that the Petitioner not having objected to
uploading of the photographs/video footage at the first available
opportunity and having participated in the inquiry conducted by the
Committee without raising any demur, we posed a query: why should
we entertain the writ petition at such a belated stage, notwithstanding
the challenge laid on the constitutional aspect, particularly when the
inquiry had culminated in submission of the Report by the Committee
to the CJI who, in turn, had written to the President and the Prime
Minister while forwarding the Report together with the Petitioner's
response?
23. In answer thereto, Mr. Sibal submitted that since a constitutional
challenge was being raised by the Petitioner and law being settled
that there could be no waiver of a Fundamental Right, the Court
may not decline interference and decide the writ petition based on
the points argued by him.
12
we need not spell out the reasons therefor in the judgment
1958
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
24. During the course of hearing, we had also put it across to Mr.
Sibal whether the Judges (Protection) Act, 198513 would have any
application in the instant case. Faced with the Protection Act, Mr. Sibal
sought to counter it by submitting two points. First, that no law as is
referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 3 - either the Constitution
or any statutory enactment - confers such power on the Supreme
Court; hence the Protection Act has no application.