The Supreme Court has admitted that the Chief Justice (CJI) of India is not a “mere post office”, leading the conclusions of an in-house investigation against the High Court Judge for the President and the Prime Minister, and that CJI plays a central, moral and deliberate role in maintaining judicial discipline and institutional credibility.
Confirming a powerful re -confirmation of CJI’s central role in maintaining institutional discipline within the judiciary, the decision given in the case of Justice Yashwant Verma of Allahabad High Court on Thursday was beyond personal dispute, which was beyond responsible for the protecting the strong legal logic on the CJI’s right and the reliability of the judiciary.
In his petition, Justice Verma, earlier this year, attacked the recommendation of May 8 by CJI Sanjeev Khanna to initiate proceedings from his official residence to discover the sacred currency from his official residence in Delhi, on the basis that CJI did not have such recommendations that they were for the house examined and ghosts.
Rejecting this argument, the Supreme Court said: “We have no hesitation in saying that the CJI committee does not have the only post office. [in-house] And the President or Prime Minister’s report is to be forwarded without any comment or recommendation. CJI is not the only post office. He must indicate why the judicial work is not entrusted to the judge, not why he should be implemented. ,
The court said in detail that while the Constitution does not leave the CJI with administrative superintendes on the High Courts, the CJI is still a “important moral responsibility”. “The Chief Justice of India is clearly an important person, if not most, in a large plan to maintain institutional interest and credibility, to find out if a judge has indulged in misconduct,” it is mentioned.
The decision rejected the notion that the communication of the findings of the CJI’s In-House Committee reduces the parliamentary impeachment process or violates the separation of powers. “The report of the investigation may or may not happen, the allegations against the judge may be found to be serious, so that a call can be made for any measure. However, if this happens, the CJI is subject to a liability to forward the report to the President and the Prime Minister. We see no justification that in SO forwarding, CJI cannot give his views,” the bench said.
Strengthening the sanctity of the in-house system, the court underlined that this process fills a constitutional void. “There is a trench in our constitutional structure in our constitutional structure in relation to an misconduct, which is a lack of proven abuse. The in-house process is recognized as a valid way to judicially to fill this difference,” said this.
The judgment stated that the President and the Prime Minister have been empowered to initiate impeachment proceedings on the basis of constitutionally material, including an in-house committee report, CJI plays an indispensable role in screening and expressing these findings.
This accepted the CJI’s discretion to trigger the process and further conclusions, while emphasizing that this power is not arbitrary, but is “regulated” and is completely to preserve the credibility of the institute. “What else is expected to do if it is the idea that the case needs a deep investigation? [constituted by the CJI] Finds substance and misconduct in the allegations, it is serious to call for the initiation of action to remove, CJI has the right to support such a discovery by forwarding the report of the investigation. ,
In response to the High Court judge to stop the judicial work, the court said that such administrative action is well within the institutional structure. “Judicial freedom does not mean that anyone can do work.
It stated that the President, who often complains to the CJI and eventually receives an inquiry report, is an important partner in the in-house process. “The President is not a stranger for this process. Not much, complaints arise from the President’s office.”
“We believe that as and when to work, take care of the substance in the complaints received, there will be a regulated discretion in the complaints received; but, once the ball is rolled by CJI, it should end with his recommendation/advice for the President and the Prime Minister, which records the committee as its findings.”
