When a Supreme Court judge raises misconduct charges against a High Court Chief Justice, the existing in-house inquiry procedure — not executive-driven transfer or impeachment — is constitutionally sufficient and should be the exclusive remedy.
Aaj ka motion yeh hai: 'In-House Inquiry Is The Only Valid Mechanism To Address Misconduct Allegations Against Senior Judges' — yani kya senior judges ke khilaf misconduct ke maamlon mein sirf in-house jaanch hi ek maanya aur vaidh rasta hai, ya is par punarvichar ki zaroorat hai? Main dono pakshon ko sunne ke baad ek balanced legal suggestion dungi — kisi ko jeeta ya haara nahi kahungi. Counsel Aarav, aap pehle apna paksh rakhiye.
My lord, main yeh poori takat se submit karta hoon ki senior judges ke khilaf misconduct allegations ko address karne ka ek hi valid mechanism hai — aur woh hai in-house inquiry, jaise Supreme Court ka 1997 ka In-House Procedure itself establish karta hai. Article 121 aur Article 211 of the Constitution of India seedha bar karte hain ki Parliament ya koi Legislature kisi judge ke conduct par discuss hi nahi kar sakti — iska matlab yeh hai ki constitutional design ne khud judiciary ke bheetar ek self-contained mechanism ki zaroorat banayi hai. Koi bhi baahri agency — chahe executive ho ya legislature — senior judges ke conduct ki janch karne ki constitutionally authorised body nahi hai, isliye in-house inquiry sirf ek option nahi, balki woh EKTAMA valid raasta hai.
My lord, vipaksh ki taraf se main yeh clearly kehna chahti hoon — in-house inquiry ko 'ONLY valid mechanism' kehna ek dangerous oversimplification hai, jo na sirf constitutional guarantees ke viruddh hai, balki judicial accountability ke mool siddhant ko hi kamzor kar deti hai. Article 32 of the Constitution, jo khud ek fundamental right hai aur jise Dr. Ambedkar ne 'heart and soul of the Constitution' kaha, kisi bhi vyakti ko — including aggrieved parties — Supreme Court ka darwaza khatakaane ka adhikar deta hai, aur is adhikar ko kisi bhi 'exclusive in-house mechanism' se replace nahi kiya ja sakta. Isliye yeh motion apne aap mein in-house inquiry ko EKMAATRA raasta bataakar ek closed, self-referential system ka samarthan karti hai — jo constitutional scheme ke viruddh hai aur main iska poora vipaksh karti hoon.
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 32
My Lord, vipaksh ka yeh kehna ki bahari mechanisms bhi valid hain — yeh Constitution ke Article 32 ki bhavna ko hi tod deta hai, kyunki Article 32 khud fundamental rights ke enforcement ka haq deta hai, lekin senior judges ke mamle mein yeh haq tab hi meaningful hota hai jab judicial independence surakshit ho — aur in-house inquiry usi independence ki raksha karti hai. Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 ke tahat established in-house process ek constitutionally grounded mechanism hai jo separation of powers ke siddhant ko banaye rakhta hai — agar executive ya police kisi judge ke khilaf seedha inquiry kare, to judicial independence ka hi hatyaan ho jaata hai. Isliye main firmly maanta hoon ki in-house inquiry sirf ek option nahi, balki EKMAATRA VALID mechanism hai senior judges ke misconduct allegations handle karne ka.
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 32
My lord, Aarav sahab ne kaha ki in-house inquiry ek 'tested mechanism' hai — lekin main yeh maanti hoon ki tested aur transparent ek hi cheez nahi hoti; ek aisa process jisme na koi independent adjudicator ho, na koi statutory appeal ka rasta, woh sirf ek internal shield ban jaata hai, accountability ka zariya nahi. Judicial independence ki raksha zaroori hai, lekin uski aad mein ek closed-door process ko 'only valid mechanism' kehna constitutional accountability ke poore fikr ko hi khatam kar deta hai — aur isi liye yeh motion galat hai. Jab tak koi baahri, verifiable check nahi hoga, public trust aur judicial legitimacy dono ek hi saath kamzor padenge — aur is sawaal ka jawab sirf 'hum khud dekh lenge' nahi ho sakta.
Aaj ki is debate mein, Prosecution ki taraf ne kaha ki In-House Inquiry judicial swatantrata ki raksha karti hai aur constitutional structure ke anuroop hai — jabki Defence ki taraf ne kaha ki sirf ek internal mechanism accountability ke liye kaafi nahi hai aur ek transparent, broader process zaroori hai. Main koi verdict nahi sunaungi, lekin ek balanced legal suggestion deti hoon: judiciary ki swatantrata aur public accountability — dono ko saath lekar chalna hoga, isliye In-House process ko ek structured, transparent oversight framework ke saath supplement karna chahiye, jisme Supreme Court ka Article 142 ke tahat 'complete justice' ka adhikar ek important safeguard ban sake. Ab main tamam citizens se nivedan karti hoon ki is debate ko rate karein aur apni raay share karein.
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 142