Learn about the legal restrictions on filing an FIR against a sitting judge, the in-house enquiry procedure, and key judicial rulings on judicial accountability.
NEW DELHI: Recent reports regarding the alleged recovery of unaccounted money from the residence of Justice Yashwant Verma of the Delhi High Court have sent shockwaves across the legal fraternity. While it is understood that the Supreme Court Collegium is considering a proposal to transfer Justice Verma and that the Delhi High Court Chief Justice is enquiring into the matter, several concerns have been raised about judicial accountability and due process.
This incident has reignited debates on whether an FIR can be registered against a sitting judge and how allegations against judges are handled within the judiciary.
The judiciary holds a unique position in a democratic society, ensuring justice and upholding constitutional values. Given their crucial role, judges are accorded special protections to safeguard judicial independence.
However, questions arise regarding the criminal liability of sitting judges, particularly whether an FIR (First Information Report) can be registered against them. Furthermore, the judiciary has established an in-house enquiry mechanism to deal with complaints against judges.
Can an FIR Be Registered Against a Sitting Judge?
The registration of an FIR against a sitting judge is subject to constitutional and procedural safeguards to protect judicial independence. The landmark judgment in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991) [(1991) 3 SCC 655] addressed this issue in detail. The Supreme Court held that:
- Prior Sanction Requirement: An FIR cannot be registered against a sitting judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court without prior sanction from the President of India (in consultation with the Chief Justice of India). This safeguard ensures that judges are not subjected to frivolous complaints that could interfere with their judicial functions.
- Judicial Independence: The court emphasized that the judiciary must be protected from vexatious criminal proceedings that could undermine its independence. A judge must be free to make decisions without fear of legal harassment.
- Scope of Protection: While judges enjoy certain immunities, they are not above the law. If there is a prima facie case of misconduct or criminality, the matter must be dealt with following due process. The provision of prior sanction acts as a filtering mechanism to assess the seriousness of allegations before legal action is initiated.
READ JUDGEMENT HERE:
Exceptions to Prior Sanction
While the general rule is that prior sanction is required, there are certain exceptional cases where legal action against a judge can proceed without it:
- If a judge is caught red-handed in a criminal act, such as bribery or corruption, law enforcement agencies may take immediate action subject to subsequent judicial review.
- If a retired judge is involved, the protection no longer applies, and regular legal procedures can be followed.
- If the alleged offense is committed in a personal capacity and is unrelated to judicial duties, normal legal procedures apply.
Judicial Precedents on FIR Against Judges
Apart from K. Veeraswami, other significant cases have provided clarity on the subject:
- Lalu Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar (2003): The Supreme Court reaffirmed that judicial officers cannot be prosecuted without prior sanction to prevent misuse of the criminal process against them.
- Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023): This case underscored the importance of institutional integrity and mechanisms for accountability within the judiciary.
- P.D. Dinakaran Case (2011): Justice P.D. Dinakaran, a former Chief Justice of the Sikkim High Court, was investigated for corruption and land-grabbing allegations. Though the impeachment process was initiated, he resigned before its conclusion, highlighting the challenges in prosecuting sitting judges.
- Justice C.S. Karnan Case (2017): The Supreme Court sentenced Justice C.S. Karnan of the Calcutta High Court to six months’ imprisonment for contempt of court, marking an unprecedented instance of judicial accountability.
In-House Enquiry Procedure for Complaints Against Judges
Recognizing the need for internal accountability, the Supreme Court in In Re: K. Veeraswami laid the foundation for an in-house procedure to deal with complaints against judges. This mechanism was formalized in 1997 based on the recommendations of a committee headed by Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah.
Steps in the In-House Enquiry Procedure:
- Initial Scrutiny: Any complaint against a sitting judge is first examined by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) or the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court. If the complaint is found to be frivolous or baseless, it is dismissed at this stage.
- Constitution of an Enquiry Committee: If the complaint is found to have merit, an in-house committee comprising senior judges is formed. This committee may include sitting Supreme Court and High Court judges.
- Confidential Investigation: The committee conducts a confidential enquiry, seeking evidence and responses from the concerned judge. Witnesses may be examined, and documentary evidence is reviewed.
- Findings and Recommendations: Based on its findings, the committee submits a report to the CJI. If no misconduct is found, the complaint is dismissed. If wrongdoing is established, appropriate action is recommended.
- Consequences:
- If misconduct is found, the judge may be advised to resign voluntarily.
- If the judge refuses to resign, the matter may be escalated for impeachment proceedings under Article 124(4) and Article 217(1)(b) of the Constitution.
- If the allegations involve criminality, further action may be taken based on judicial recommendations.
Distinction Between FIR and In-House Proceeding Against a Judge
| Aspect | FIR Registration | In-House Enquiry |
|---|---|---|
| Authority | Requires President’s sanction (consultation with CJI) | Handled by judiciary internally |
| Nature | Criminal process involving police investigation | Internal disciplinary mechanism |
| Outcome | Possible prosecution if permitted | Recommendations for resignation or impeachment |
| Scope | Covers criminal allegations | Covers misconduct and ethical breaches |
| Publicity | May become a public criminal trial | Confidential proceedings to protect judicial reputation |
Challenges in Prosecuting Sitting Judges
Despite the existing procedures, there are significant challenges in holding judges accountable for criminal or ethical misconduct:
- Lack of Transparency: The in-house procedure is confidential, leading to concerns about lack of public accountability.
- Judicial Immunity: The requirement of prior sanction makes it difficult to initiate criminal proceedings against sitting judges.
- Delays in Proceedings: Internal enquiries can take years, allowing accused judges to continue in office without consequence.
- Political and Institutional Pressure: The process of impeachment is complex and requires a two-thirds majority in Parliament, making it extremely rare.
While the judiciary enjoys constitutional protections, sitting judges are not above the law. The requirement of prior sanction before registering an FIR is meant to prevent undue interference in judicial functions. Simultaneously, the in-house enquiry procedure ensures judicial accountability through internal mechanisms. However, challenges remain in ensuring timely and transparent proceedings against errant judges. A balance must be struck between judicial independence and accountability to maintain public trust in the legal system.
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE