Case: Additional District &amp; Sessions Judge 'X' Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh &amp; Others

attempts were made by the petitioner to meet the Chief Justice of the High Court, and whether he declined such attempts. In the above view of the matter, we are of the considered view, that it may not be appropriate, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, to associate the Chief Justice of the High Court with the investigative process. It is not as if, there is any lack of faith, in the Chief Justice of the High Court. It is also not as if, there is any doubt in our mind, about the righteousness of the Chief Justice of the High Court. The issue is that of propriety. To the credit of the Chief Justice of the High Court, we may also observe, that he may have adopted the present procedure, just for the reasons indicated above, namely, to keep himself out of the fact finding process, so as to arrive at a fair and just decision. But that is inconsequential. We are accordingly further satisfied in concluding, that following the in-house procedure strictly by associating the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, would not serve the contemplated purpose, insofar as the present controversy is concerned. 44. We have concluded hereinabove, that it is no longer viable, to strictly follow the in-house procedure contemplated for sitting judges of the High Court de novo. That however, does not mean, that it is no longer possible to determine the veracity of the allegations levelled by the petitioner. What procedure must be followed in the facts and circumstances of the present case, will have to be determined by the Chief Justice of India. We therefore, leave it to the Chief Justice of India, to take a fresh call on the matter. All that needs to be done is, that the role assigned to the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, in the first stage of the in-house procedure, will now have to be assigned to some one other than the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court. In taking a decision on the matter, the Chief Justice of India may assign the above role to a Chief Justice, of some other High Court. Or alternatively, he may himself assume the said role. The assumption of the role by the Chief Justice of India himself, would not be unrealistic, as the said role is vested with the Chief Justice of India, under the in-house procedure, with reference to complaints received against Chief Justices of High Courts. 45. In view of the consideration and the findings recorded hereinabove, we may record our general conclusions as under: (i) The in-house procedure framed by this Court, consequent upon the decision rendered in C. Ravichandran Iyers case (supra) can be adopted, to examine allegations levelled against Judges of High Courts, Chief Justices of High Courts and Judges of the Supreme Court of India. (ii) The investigative process under the in-house procedure takes into consideration the rights of the complainant, and that of the concerned judge, by adopting a fair procedure, to determine the veracity of allegations levelled against a sitting Judge. At the same time, it safeguards the integrity of the judicial institution. (iii) Even though the said procedure, should ordinarily be followed in letter and spirit, the Chief Justice of India, would have the authority to mould the same, in the facts and circumstances of a given case, to ensure that the investigative process affords safeguards, against favouritism, prejudice or bias. (iv) In view of the importance of the in-house procedure, it is essential to bring it into public domain. The Registry of the Supreme Court of India, is accordingly directed, to place the same on the official website of the Supreme Court of India. 46. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, our conclusions are as under: With reference to the in-house procedure pertaining to a judge of a High Court, the limited authority of the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, is to determine whether or not a deeper probe is required. The said determination is a part of stage-one (comprising of the first three steps) of the in-house procedure (elucidated in paragraph 37, hereinabove). The Chief Justice of the High Court, in the present case, traveled beyond the determinative authority vested in him, under stage-one of the in-house procedure. The Chief Justice of the High Court, by constituting a two-Judge Committee, commenced an in-depth probe, into the allegations levelled by the petitioner. The procedure adopted by the Chief Justice of the High Court, forms a part of the second stage (contemplated under steps four to seven -elucidated in paragraph 37, hereinabove). The second stage of the in-house procedure is to be carried out, under the authority of the Chief Justice of India. The Chief Justice of the High Court by constituting a two-Judge Committee clearly traversed beyond his jurisdictional authority, under the in-house procedure. In order to ensure, that the investigative process is fair and just, it is imperative to divest the concerned judge (against whom allegations have been levelled), of his administrative and supervisory authority and control over witnesses, to be produced either on behalf of the complainant, or on behalf of the concerned judge himself. The Chief Justice of the High Court is accordingly directed to divest respondent no.3 - Justice A, of the administrative and supervisory control vested in him, to the extent expressed above. The Chief Justice of the High Court, having assumed a firm position, in respect of certain facts contained in the complaint filed by the petitioner, ought not to be associated with the in-house procedure in the present case. In the above view of the matter, the Chief Justice of India may reinitiate the investigative process, under the in-house procedure, by vesting the authority required to be discharged by the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, to a Chief Justice of some other High Court, or alternatively, the Chief Justice of India may himself assume the said role.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]34. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the main contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the process of examining the, we have had the occasion to appreciate the invaluable contribution made by three Judges of this Court, two of whom adorned this Court as Chief Justices, and two Chief Justices of High Courts, one of whom was later elevated as a Judge of this Court. The, did not overlook any relevant aspect. The sensitivity of the matter was kept in mind. The individual integrity of the parties was taken care of. The parties concerned were assured, that all efforts would be made to unravel the truth. The procedure devised ensured the preservation of institutional reputation, as well. In dealing with complaints made against sitting judges of High Courts, the onus of recording a prima facie view, was vested with the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court. Participation in the investigative process, at the hands of any other judge of the same High Court, was sought to be excluded. The exclusion of judges of the same Court from the investigative process, was also well thought out. In certain situations it may be true, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that judges of the same Court being colleagues of the concerned judge, would endeavour to exculpate him from his predicament. It is not as if, the position could not be otherwise. Animosity amongst colleagues is not unknown. Reasons of competitiveness, jealousy and the like are known amongst colleague judges, specially from the same High Court. By excluding judges of the concerned High Court (as the judge complained against), is bound to be beneficial, in both the situations, referred to above. The Chief Justice of the High Court, being a Judge from another State, would be shorn of any such prejudices. Moreover, being a man on the spot, he would be most suited for the purpose35. A perusal of theapplicable to sitting judges of High Courts reveals, that the same is compartmentalized into two stages. Through the first stage, the prima facie veracity of the allegations, contained in the complaint is ascertained. If so, whether a deeper probe is called for. The first stage does not contemplate an in-depth examination of the allegations. It requires merely an assessment based on the contents of the complaint, and the response of the concerned judge. All that the Chief Justice of the High Court is required to do, is to determine whether a deeper probe is required. This is to be done, on the basis of a logical assessment made on a consideration of the response of the concerned Judge (with reference to the allegations levelled in the complaint)38. It is apparent from the, for sitting High Court Judges, that the role of the Chief Justice of the High Court, is limited to the first three steps. We are satisfied, that the main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on theis fully justified. There can be no doubt, that it was not open to the Chief Justice of the High Court, either to constitute the, or to require the, to hold an inquiry into the matter, by recording statements of witnesses. The role of the Chief Justice of the High Court, being limited to the first stage of the investigative process, during which the only determination is, whether a prima facie case is made out requiring a deeper probe; the Chief Justice of the High Court had exceeded the authority vested in him under the. It is only in the second stage of the investigative process, that the Chief Justice of India, is to constitute afor holding a deeper probe, into the allegations levelled in the complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner, was fully justified, in submitting, that theconstituted by the Chief Justice of the High Court, was beyond the purview of the39. Having examined the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view, that by not strictly abiding by the procedure contemplated under theevolved by this Court, the Chief Justice of the High Court, introduced serious infirmities in the investigative process. These infirmities were of the nature which were sought to be consciously avoided under the. We may mention a few. It is apparent, that thecontemplated an independent holistic two-stage process. We have described hereinabove, that the first stage comprises of steps one to three. The first stage is limited to a prima facie consideration, at the hands of the Chief Justice of the High Court, for determining whether a deeper probe into the matter was required43. It is essential for us to record a finding even on the last contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel. We say so, because according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would not be proper, in the facts and circumstances of this case, to reinitiate the process expressed in the, through the Chief Justice of the High Court. It seems to us, that there is merit in the instant contention. Undoubtedly, the Chief Justice of the High Court has adopted a position, in respect of some aspects of the matter, contrary to the position asserted by the petitioner. Truthfully, even though these facts do not have any direct bearing on the allegations levelled against respondent no. 3, yet when examined dispassionately, the fact of the matter is that the Chief Justice of the High Court, personally perceived certain facts differently. These facts are personal to the Chief Justice of the High Court, namely, whether attempts were made by the petitioner to meet the Chief Justice of the High Court, and whether he declined such attempts. In the above view of the matter, we are of the considered view, that it may not be appropriate, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, to associate the Chief Justice of the High Court with the investigative process. It is not as if, there is any lack of faith, in the Chief Justice of the High Court. It is also not as if, there is any doubt in our mind, about the righteousness of the Chief Justice of the High Court. The issue is that of propriety. To the credit of the Chief Justice of the High Court, we may also observe, that he may have adopted the present procedure, just for the reasons indicated above, namely, to keep himself out of the fact finding process, so as to arrive at a fair and just decision. But that is inconsequential. We are accordingly further satisfied in concluding, that following thestrictly by associating the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, would not serve the contemplated purpose, insofar as the present controversy is concerned45. In view of the consideration and the findings recorded hereinabove, we may record our general conclusions as under:framed by this Court, consequent upon the decision rendered in C. Ravichandran Iyers case (supra) can be adopted, to examine allegations levelled against Judges of High Courts, Chief Justices of High Courts and Judges of the Supreme Court of India(ii) The investigative process under thetakes into consideration the rights of the complainant, and that of the concerned judge, by adopting a fair procedure, to determine the veracity of allegations levelled against a sitting Judge. At the same time, it safeguards the integrity of the judicial institution(iii) Even though the said procedure, should ordinarily be followed in letter and spirit, the Chief Justice of India, would have the authority to mould the same, in the facts and circumstances of a given case, to ensure that the investigative process affords safeguards, against favouritism, prejudice or bias(iv) In view of the importance of the, it is essential to bring it into public domain. The Registry of the Supreme Court of India, is accordingly directed, to place the same on the official website of the Supreme Court of India46. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, our conclusions are as under:pertaining to a judge of a High Court, the limited authority of the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, is to determine whether or not a deeper probe is required. The said determination is a part of stage-one (comprising of the first three steps) of the(elucidated in paragraph 37, hereinabove). The Chief Justice of the High Court, in the present case, traveled beyond the determinative authority vested in him, under stage-one of theThe Chief Justice of the High Court, by constituting a, commenced an in-depth probe, into the allegations levelled by the petitioner. The procedure adopted by the Chief Justice of the High Court, forms a part of the second stage (contemplated under steps four to seven -elucidated in paragraph 37, hereinabove). The second stage of theis to be carried out, under the authority of the Chief Justice of India. The Chief Justice of the High Court by constituting aclearly traversed beyond his jurisdictional authority, under theIn order to ensure, that the investigative process is fair and just, it is imperative to divest the concerned judge (against whom allegations have been levelled), of his administrative and supervisory authority and control over witnesses, to be produced either on behalf of the complainant, or on behalf of the concerned judge himself. The Chief Justice of the High Court is accordingly directed to divest respondent no.3 - Justice A, of the administrative and supervisory control vested in him, to the extent expressed aboveThe Chief Justice of the High Court, having assumed a firm position, in respect of certain facts contained in the complaint filed by the petitioner, ought not to be associated with thein the present case. In the above view of the matter, the Chief Justice of India may reinitiate the investigative process, under the, by vesting the authority required to be discharged by the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, to a Chief Justice of some other High Court, or alternatively, the Chief Justice of India may himself assume the said role