SC: Judges Can Face Action Without Impeachment

### Rapid Summary
– The Supreme Court of India ruled that impeachment by Parliament is not the sole mechanism to initiate the removal of judges for misconduct.
– A Bench comprising justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih interpreted Section 3(2) of the Judges (Protection) Act, officially recognizing in-house inquiry procedures for addressing allegations against High Court judges.
– The Chief Justice of India is now legally empowered to conduct inquiries into judicial misconduct under the purview of “or else” in section 3(2).
– The court emphasized that not all instances of judicial misconduct equate to “proved misbehaviour” warranting impeachment under Articles 217 and 218; in-house procedures fill this gap.
– Justice Datta noted that advances in technology allow complaints about judicial misbehavior from various sources, requiring mechanisms beyond parliamentary action.
– The judgment highlighted judicial independence alongside accountability, cautioning against misuse or unchecked behaviour by sitting judges.

—

### Indian Opinion Analysis
The Supreme Court’s ruling marks a critical step toward enhancing accountability within India’s judiciary. While maintaining independence remains a cornerstone for ensuring impartial justice delivery, this judgment underscores the importance of balancing freedom with responsible conduct. By legitimizing an in-house procedure outside Parliamentary impeachment processes, it addresses gaps where misconduct may not reach constitutional thresholds but still necessitates scrutiny. This move could ensure quicker responses to allegations while preserving institutional credibility.On broader implications, empowering the Chief Justice as a central figure reinforces hierarchical oversight without undermining foundational principles like separation of powers or autonomy. However, effective implementation and safeguards will be pivotal to ensure fairness and avoid potential misuse-an essential aspect given public reliance on judiciary integrity. Regular engagement with evolving technologies flagged during court deliberations could also aid clarity going forward.

Read more: [Supreme Court ruling on judge removal](#).