XXX v. THE UNION OF INDIA
Discusses judicial accountability, constitutional interpretation, and the balance between judicial independence and accountability.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 943
Decision Date: 07-08-2025
List of Laws
Constitution of India, 1949; Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968; Judges Protection Act, 1985; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; General Principles of Law
- Constitution of India, 1949: The judgment extensively discusses Articles 14, 21, 32, 121, 124, 125, 141, 211, 217, and 218. Article 14 (equality before law) is discussed in the context of procedural fairness and whether the in-house procedure violates it. Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) is mentioned regarding the petitioner's right to reputation. Article 32 (remedies for enforcement of rights) is invoked as the basis for the writ petition. Articles 121 (restriction on discussion in Parliament) and 124 (establishment and constitution of Supreme Court) are analyzed concerning the removal of judges. Article 124(4) and 124(5) are specifically cited regarding the process of impeachment and the power of Parliament to regulate the procedure. Article 125 is mentioned in conjunction with Article 124. Article 141 (law declared by Supreme Court to be binding) is invoked to provide legal sanction to the in-house procedure. Article 211 (restriction on discussion in State Legislatures) is mentioned similarly to Article 121. Articles 217 (appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of a High Court) and 218 (application of certain provisions relating to Supreme Court to High Courts) are discussed in relation to the removal process of High Court judges, specifically referencing Article 124. The judgment analyzes whether the "In-House Procedure" is ultra vires these constitutional provisions.
- Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: The judgment discusses the Act in relation to the constitutional provisions for the removal of judges, particularly Article 124(5). It analyzes whether the Act provides a complete and comprehensive code for the removal process. The judgment also considers the safeguards provided in the Act, such as framing of charges, presentation of evidence, and cross-examination of witnesses, and compares them to the "In-House Procedure". Section 3(2) is mentioned in the context of a challenge in a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
- Judges Protection Act, 1985: The judgment analyzes the applicability of the Act, particularly Section 3, to the "In-House Procedure". Section 2 is discussed in relation to the definition of a "Judge". Section 3(1) is analyzed regarding the bar on courts entertaining civil or criminal proceedings against a judge for acts done in the discharge of official duty. Section 3(2) is discussed extensively, focusing on whether it saves the power of the Supreme Court to initiate proceedings against a High Court judge under the "In-House Procedure". The judgment interprets the term "otherwise" in Section 3(2) to encompass the "In-House Procedure".
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: The judgment mentions that the committee constituted under the Inquiry Act has the same powers as a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for summoning witnesses, examining them on oath, requiring discovery and production of documents, and issuing commissions.
- General Principles of Law: The judgment discusses the principles of natural justice in the context of the "In-House Procedure". It considers whether the procedure provides a fair opportunity to the judge under probe, even though it does not require cross-examination of witnesses or representation by a lawyer. The principle of 'nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa' is mentioned. The judgment also touches upon the doctrine of waiver in the context of fundamental rights.
🔒 For Members Only