Supreme Court Interventions on High Court Judicial Conduct
Source:The Hindu ↗
Why It Matters
The conduct of constitutional court judges is fundamental to maintaining public trust in the justice system. Instances of bias, sexism, or insubordination necessitate Supreme Court oversight and highlight the structural and ethical challenges within the Indian judiciary, making this highly relevant for GS2 (Polity - Judiciary) and GS4 (Ethics).
Summary
In 2024, the Supreme Court of India frequently intervened to curb a disturbing trend of communal, sexist, and insubordinate conduct by several sitting High Court judges. The apex court formed five-judge benches multiple times to address controversies, such as a Karnataka High Court judge referring to a Bengaluru locality as 'Pakistan' and a Punjab and Haryana High Court judge challenging the Supreme Court's supervisory jurisdiction. Additionally, a formal removal motion was initiated in the Rajya Sabha against an Allahabad High Court judge for communal remarks. These developments underscore critical issues regarding judicial accountability, ethical conduct, and the balance between the independence of High Courts and institutional discipline enforced by the Supreme Court.
Key Points
- In 2024, the Supreme Court actively intervened against communal, sexist, and insubordinate remarks made by sitting High Court judges.
- A removal motion against Allahabad High Court Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, supported by 55 Rajya Sabha MPs, is currently pending due to his controversial remarks targeting the Muslim community.
- The SC initiated suo motu action against Karnataka HC Justice V. Srishananda for referring to a Bengaluru locality as 'Pakistan' and making sexist comments, which was later closed following a public apology.
- The apex court also had to rein in insubordination and internal conflicts, such as Punjab and Haryana HC Justice Rajbir Sehrawat criticizing the SC's authority, and Calcutta HC Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay accusing a colleague of political bias.
- These incidents highlight the ongoing tension between judicial independence and the need for accountability and ethical conduct within the higher judiciary.
Important Terms
Judicial Accountability
The principle that judges are answerable for their professional and personal conduct, ensuring they uphold ethical standards while maintaining the independence required for impartial justice.
UPSC context
GS Paper II (Polity) and GS IV (Ethics). Tests the balance between judicial independence and institutional responsibility.
Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (1997)
A code of ethics adopted by the Supreme Court in 1997 to guide judges’ conduct, mandating impartiality, integrity, and avoidance of public political discourse.
UPSC context
GS Paper IV (Ethics). Essential for discussing judicial reform and the moral standards expected of the higher judiciary.
Removal of Judges (Impeachment)
A formal parliamentary procedure under Articles 124(4) and 217 for removing higher judiciary members on grounds of 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity' through a special majority.
UPSC context
GS Paper II (Polity). Tests procedural knowledge of constitutional checks, balances, and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
Suo Motu Cognizance
The Supreme Court’s inherent power to initiate legal proceedings on its own motion, often used to address judicial misconduct or public interest issues.
UPSC context
GS Paper II (Judiciary). Evaluates understanding of the apex court's proactive role in upholding constitutional integrity.
Supervisory Jurisdiction
The authority exercised by the Supreme Court to oversee and discipline High Courts, ensuring they adhere to the established judicial hierarchy and institutional norms.
UPSC context
GS Paper II (Polity). Key for questions on judicial hierarchy and maintaining discipline within the federal legal structure.
Prelims Trap
High Courts are administratively subordinate to the Supreme Court, allowing the CJI to take direct disciplinary action against HC judges.
High Courts are independent constitutional courts, not administratively subordinate to the Supreme Court. The SC has appellate jurisdiction, but no direct administrative or disciplinary control.
Static Concepts Connected
What is the procedure for the removal of a High Court Judge?
- Constitutional Grounds: Removed only on grounds of "proved misbehaviour or incapacity" under Article 217(1)(b) read with Article 124(4).
- Initiation & Discretion: Requires a motion signed by 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs. The presiding officer may admit or refuse the motion.
- Inquiry Committee: If admitted, a 3-member committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 investigates the charges.
- Parliamentary Approval: Requires a special majority in both Houses of Parliament in the same session, followed by a formal Presidential order.
What is the "In-House Procedure" for higher judiciary?
- Origin & Purpose: Adopted by the Supreme Court in 1999 to address complaints of misconduct falling short of the strict threshold for impeachment.
- Mechanism: Empowers the Chief Justice of India to investigate complaints against judges through peer committees.
- Informal Sanctions: Can recommend withdrawal of judicial work, voluntary retirement, or resignation, but lacks statutory power to formally remove a judge.
Cross-Topic Patterns
Judicial Standards & Accountability Gap
The gap between the extreme step of impeachment and the informal In-House Procedure highlights the absence of a statutory disciplinary framework, a frequent GS-II Mains theme.
Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (1997)
A 16-point code of judicial ethics mandating 'aloofness'. Controversial remarks in open court directly violate this, bridging GS-II (Polity) and GS-IV (Ethics in public office).
Expect a 2026 Prelims statement contrasting the SC's lack of administrative superintendence over High Courts with the Judges Inquiry Act.
Linked PYQs · 4
Linked PYQs · 4
- 2025MainsGS2
"Constitutional morality is the fulcrum which acts as an essential check upon the high functionaries and citizens alike...." In view of the above observation of the Supreme Court, explain the concept of constitutional morality and its application to ensure balance between judicial independence and judicial accountability in India.
- 2023MainsGS2
“Constitutionally guaranteed judicial independence is a prerequisite of democracy.” Comment.
- 2019PrelimsGS1
Consider the following statements: 1. The motion to impeach a Judge of the Supreme Court of India cannot be rejected by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. 2. The Constitution of India defines and gives details of what constitutes 'incapacity and proved misbehaviour' of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India. 3. The details of the process of impeachment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India are given in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. 4. If the motion for the impeachment of a Judge is taken up for voting, the law requires the motion to be backed by each House of the Parliament and supported by a majority of total membership of that House and by not less than two-thirds of total members of that House present and voting. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- 2024MainsGS4
“Ethics encompasses several key dimensions that are crucial in guiding individuals and organizations towards morally responsible behaviour.” Explain the key dimensions of ethics that influence human actions. Discuss how these dimensions shape ethical decision-making in the professional context.
