In-house inquiry procedure enters crucial second stage

New Delhi: With Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna constituting a three-member panel to probe the discovery of “four to five semi-burnt sacks” of Indian currency notes after a fire incident at the residence of Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma, the in-house procedure has entered the crucial second-stage whose findings will decide the fate of the judge.

The fire incident at the storeroom of the official residence of Justice Varma on March 14 in posh Lutyens’ Delhi locality purportedly led to the discovery of the cash by firefighters and police personnel.

The CJI constituted the three-member panel after the Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya in his report dated March 21 and made public on Saturday evening called for a “deeper probe” into the allegations.

The three-member inquiry committee formed by the CJI consists of Justices Sheel Nagu (Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court), G S Sandhawalia (Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court) and Karnataka High Court judge Anu Sivaraman.

However, no timeline has been fixed for the inquiry committee to conclude the probe.

In 2014, while dealing with a case of alleged sexual harassment of a subordinate court judge in Madhya Pradesh at the behest of a sitting judge of the high court, the top court laid down the in-house procedure meant to probe the allegations against a judge of the constitutional courts.

It said in the first stage of the in-house procedure, 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),” it had said.

The top court had said it is the “second stage of the in-house procedure” relating to sitting judges of high courts which could lead to serious consequences.

The second stage is monitored by none other than the CJI, it had said.

Only if the Chief Justice of India endorses the view expressed by the Chief Justice of the high court, that a deeper probe is called for, he would constitute a “three-member Committee”, and thereby take the investigative process to the second stage.

This committee will comprise two Chief Justices of the High Courts (other than the concerned High Court), besides a Judge of a High Court. The second stage postulates a deeper probe, it had said.

The top court had said even though the three-member panel is at liberty to devise its own procedure, the inherent requirement provided for is that the procedure evolved should be in consonance with the rules of natural justice.

“Herein, for the first time, the authenticity of the allegations is to be probed on the basis of an inquiry.

“The incumbents of the three-member Committee would have no nexus with the concerned judge. Not only would the concerned judge have a fair opportunity to repudiate the allegations levelled against him, even the complainant would have the satisfaction that the investigation would not be unfair. The in-house procedure was devised to ensure exclusion of favouritism, prejudice or bias,” it had said.

The top court had also enumerated different steps that are to be followed during the in-house procedure for probing into the allegations against a sitting high court judge.

It said on the culmination of the inquiry, conducted by the panel, it shall record its conclusions and a report be furnished to the CJI.

The top court had said that the report of the panel could lead to one of the following conclusions -- that, there is no substance in the allegations levelled against the concerned judge; or that there is sufficient substance in the allegations levelled against the judge.

“In such eventuality, the three-member Committee, must further opine, whether the misconduct levelled against the concerned Judge is so serious, that it requires initiation of proceedings for the removal of the concerned Judge; or that, the allegations contained in the complaint are not serious enough to require initiation of proceedings for the removal of the concerned Judge,” it had said.