Summary and Analysis of XXX v. Union of India & Ors (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 699 of 2025

1. Heading of the Judgment

XXX v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation:
(2025) INSC 943 (Reportable)

2. Relevant Laws and Constitutional Provisions

The case involves:

• Constitution of India:
  Article 14: Right to equality.
  Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty.
  Article 32: Right to constitutional remedies.
  Articles 124(4)–(5): Procedure for removal of Supreme Court judges.
  Articles 217 & 218: Procedure for removal of High Court judges.
  Articles 121 & 211: Restrictions on parliamentary discussion of judicial conduct.

• Statutes:
  Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: Regulates investigation into judicial misconduct.
  Judges (Protection) Act, 1985: Grants immunity to judges for official acts.

• Administrative Framework:
  "In-House Procedure" (1999): Self-regulatory mechanism adopted by the Supreme Court’s Full Court for judicial discipline.

3. Basic Case Details

Parties:

• Petitioner: A sitting Judge of the Allahabad High Court (formerly of Delhi High Court).

• Respondents: Union of India, Chief Justice of India (CJI), and Committee members.

Background:

• Incident: Fire broke out in the Petitioner’s official residence (March 2025), revealing burnt currency notes in a storeroom.

• Allegation: Suspected violation of the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (judicial code of conduct).

• Procedure Followed:
  CJI invoked the "In-House Procedure" (1999), constituting a 3-member Committee to probe misconduct.
  Committee found "serious misconduct" warranting removal proceedings (May 3, 2025).
  CJI forwarded the report to the President and Prime Minister, advising the Petitioner to resign (May 4, 2025).

• Petitioner’s Challenge:
  Constitutionality of Paragraphs 5(b) and 7(ii) of the In-House Procedure.
  Alleged violation of Articles 14, 21, and 124–218 due to lack of due process.
  Public disclosure of evidence (photos/videos) prejudiced fair inquiry.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

Key Issues Decided:

1. Validity of the "In-House Procedure" (1999):
   Supreme Court’s Holding:
   The Procedure is constitutionally valid and fills a "yawning gap" in disciplining judges for misconduct short of impeachable offences (C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee followed).
   It operates as a preliminary fact-finding mechanism (not a guilt-finding inquiry) and is backed by:
   Article 141 (law declared by Supreme Court).
   Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 (Section 3(2) permits "other proceedings" against judges).
   Outcome: Paragraphs 5(b) (CJI’s power to recommend removal) and 7(ii) (forwarding report to President/PM) upheld.

2. Role of the CJI in Recommending Removal:
   Court’s Reasoning:
   CJI’s recommendation is not a "parallel constitutional mechanism" but an internal step to preserve institutional integrity.
   Forwarding the report to the President (appointing authority) is logical and does not violate separation of powers.
   Key Quote:
   "The CJI is not a mere post office... [His] role is pivotal in maintaining institutional credibility."

3. Public Disclosure of Evidence:
   Holding:
   Uploading photos/videos on the Supreme Court’s website was improper (Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India emphasized confidentiality).
   However, the Petitioner’s failure to object earlier and participation in the inquiry waived his right to challenge this.

4. Nature of Inquiry Under the Procedure:
   Court’s Analysis:
   The inquiry is preliminary, non-punitive, and confidential.
   It does not replace the constitutional removal process (impeachment via Parliament) but acts as a screening mechanism.
   No violation of natural justice as the Judge under probe is heard.

5. Petitioner’s Conduct:
   Critical Observation:
   The writ petition was filed belatedly (after the Committee’s adverse report).
   Petitioner’s acquiescence to the inquiry and failure to challenge procedural flaws earlier disentitled him to relief.

6. Judges (Protection) Act, 1985:
   Interpretation:
   Section 3(2) permits the Supreme Court to initiate proceedings against judges under the In-House Procedure ("other proceedings").
   The Act does not shield judges from disciplinary action for misconduct.

Final Outcome:

• Writ Petition Dismissed:
  No violation of the Petitioner’s fundamental rights or constitutional provisions.
  The In-House Procedure and CJI’s actions upheld as legally valid.

5. Legal Principles Reaffirmed

1. Judicial Independence vs. Accountability:
   The judiciary must self-regulate to maintain public trust (C. Ravichandran Iyer).

2. Preliminary Inquiries:
   Distinct from formal disciplinary proceedings; materials gathered cannot be used in subsequent proceedings unless tested (Champaklal Shah v. Union of India).

3. CJI’s Authority:
   As head of the judiciary, the CJI has moral, ethical, and legal authority to protect institutional integrity.

Significance:
The judgment reinforces the judiciary’s autonomy to self-discipline while balancing accountability. It clarifies that the In-House Procedure is a constitutionally sound "stitch in time" to address judicial misconduct without parliamentary impeachment.

Citations:

• C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee (1995) 5 SCC 457

• Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2003) 5 SCC 494

• Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India (1991) 4 SCC 699