In-House Procedure
Judicial Self-Regulation
The "in-house procedure" is an extra-statutory mechanism adopted by the Supreme Court in 1999, following the 1995 Ravichandran Iyer case, to handle complaints of minor judicial misconduct that don't rise to the level of impeachable offences. Under this procedure, the Chief Justice of India investigates complaints and can recommend transfer, request for resignation, or merely issue an advisory — but cannot remove a judge. The in-house procedure is NOT a law under Article 124(5) and its findings are morally significant but legally not equivalent to a Judges (Inquiry) Act committee report.
- In-house procedure: Adopted 1999; runs through the CJI; no statutory backing.
- Can result in: Advisory, transfer (as happened with Justice Varma — transferred from Delhi to Allahabad HC), request for resignation, or referral to parliamentary process.
- Distinct from Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 which is the statutory path.
- In the Varma case: In-house inquiry found "secret or active control" over cash → case escalated to Judges (Inquiry) Act committee.
- Limitation: In-house procedure has no power to compel, punish, or suspend a judge.
● Tracked since April 10, 2026 · last seen September 01, 2026 · updates as the daily brief publishes
See it in today’s brief.
Daily current affairs with every static concept explained in place.
Read the daily brief