Context:

Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar recently questioned the legal sanctity of the Supreme Court’s in-house inquiry mechanism. His remarks have reignited debate on judicial accountability, and he called for a re-examination of the landmark 1991 K. Veeraswami ruling, which restricts the registration of FIRs against sitting judges of constitutional courts.

Procedure for Filing an FIR against a High Court Judge:

Filing an FIR against a sitting High Court or Supreme Court judge is a highly restricted process designed to protect judicial independence. According to the Supreme Court's ruling in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991), no FIR or criminal proceedings can be initiated without the prior approval of the Chief Justice of India (CJI). The CJI must first assess the credibility of the allegations.

This safeguard is intended to prevent misuse of the legal system, such as frivolous or malicious complaints from dissatisfied litigants, while still allowing for judicial accountability in legitimate cases, particularly involving corruption.

About In-House Procedure for Judicial Accountability:

The In-House Procedure for Judicial Accountability was created to address judicial misconduct that doesn’t meet the threshold for impeachment. It was prompted by allegations of financial impropriety against Bombay High Court Chief Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee in 1995. In C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee, the Supreme Court acknowledged a gap between “bad behaviour” and “impeachable misbehaviour” under Article 124 of the Constitution.

• A five-member committee was formed to develop an internal process.
• Its recommendations were submitted in 1997 and formally adopted by the Supreme Court in 1999.

The procedure was refined in 2014 after a sexual harassment allegation by a Madhya Pradesh judge (Additional District and Sessions Judge ‘X’ v. Registrar General High Court of Madhya Pradesh). Justices J.S. Khehar and Arun Mishra outlined a structured seven-step process.

About Veeraswami case:

Justice K. Veeraswami, a former Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, was accused of amassing disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He contested the proceedings, claiming that judges of superior courts should be immune from such prosecution.

Key Findings by the Supreme Court

• The SC held that while a judge can be considered a public servant for a corruption case to be registered against him, the sanction must come from the CJI.
• Ordinarily, sanction is granted by the authority that has the power to appoint the public servant.
• But the SC emphasised that there is no master and servant relationship or employer and employee relationship between a Judge and the President of India in whom the executive power of the Union is vested under the provisions of Article 53 of the Constitution.
• The inclusion of the CJI, therefore, ring-fenced the prosecution of judges against executive interference.

Conclusion:

Vice President Dhankhar’s remarks have reopened critical questions about balancing judicial independence with accountability. While the Veeraswami ruling and the in-house procedure protect judges from misuse of the legal system, rising concerns about transparency suggest the need for a re-evaluation. A refined framework is essential to ensure accountability without undermining judicial integrity.