The recent allegations of unaccounted money recovered from Justice Yashwant Verma's residence have ignited a critical discussion about judicial accountability. The legal framework, as established in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, mandates a specific protocol before criminal proceedings can be initiated against a sitting judge. This protocol, known as the "In-House Procedure" necessitates consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
The rationale behind this procedure is to shield judges from frivolous prosecutions and unwarranted harassment. The CJI, upon receiving a complaint, conducts a confidential inquiry, assessing the credibility of the allegations. If deemed necessary, a three-member committee, comprising senior judges, is constituted to conduct a thorough investigation, as clarified in subsequent rulings like Ravichandran Iyer and Additional District And Sessions.
The CJI then advises the President of India on whether to sanction the registration of an FIR. This process ensures that any action taken is based on credible evidence, safeguarding the judiciary's integrity. However, the confidentiality of these inquiries, as highlighted in Indira Jaising v. Registrar General, has raised concerns about transparency.
While the In-House Procedure serves to protect judicial independence, the lack of public access to inquiry reports fosters skepticism. Balancing institutional integrity with public trust remains a challenge, necessitating a nuanced approach that upholds both accountability and judicial sanctity. A more transparent framework, while maintaining confidentiality where necessary, could strengthen public confidence in the judiciary's ability to self-regulate.
𝗝𝗼𝗶𝗻 mentblue 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆.
𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁𝘀𝗔𝗽𝗽 : https://lnkd.in/g9gBHk9j
𝗧𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗺 : https://t.me/mentblue
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that High Courts can quash FIRs at the nascent stage of investigation under Section 482 CrPC/ Section 528 BNSS if the allegations do not disclose a prima facie offence. In a recent judgment, the Court quashed an FIR against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi, stating that the case was a clear abuse of the legal process.
The Delhi High Court, in 𝑭𝒂𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒖𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒗𝒔. 𝑵.𝑾.𝑮.𝑬.𝑳 𝑪𝒉𝒖𝒓𝒄𝒉 (𝑨𝑹𝑩.𝑷. 1318/2024), ruled that when an arbitration agreement does not specify a seat or venue, the court's jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, must be determined based on Sections 16 to 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The ruling, delivered by Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri on March 20, 2025, emphasized that 𝗷𝘂𝗿𝗶�...
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India in Disortho S.A.S. v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. held that Indian courts have jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator even if the arbitration venue is in a foreign country, provided the contract specifies Indian law as the governing law.