Understanding the 2019 CJI Sexual Harassment Inquiry Committee

The question asks about the head of the in-house committee that conducted an inquiry into a sexual harassment complaint against the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in 2019.

In situations involving complaints against high judicial functionaries, an in-house procedure is often followed to investigate the matter internally within the judiciary.

In 2019, a complaint of sexual harassment was made against the then Chief Justice of India. An in-house committee was constituted by the Supreme Court to look into this complaint.

Let's examine the options provided to identify the head of this significant in-house committee:

• Justice Indira Banerjee: While a respected judge, she was not the head of this specific inquiry committee.
• Justice S.A. Bobde: Justice S.A. Bobde was indeed the head of the in-house committee that inquired into the sexual harassment case against the CJI in 2019. He was the senior-most judge after the CJI at the time and subsequently became the Chief Justice of India.
• Justice D.Y. Chandrachud: Justice D.Y. Chandrachud is a prominent judge and currently the Chief Justice of India. However, he was not the head of the 2019 inquiry committee.
• Justice Indu Malhotra: Justice Indu Malhotra was also a distinguished judge of the Supreme Court. She was initially part of the committee but recused herself. She was not the head.

Therefore, based on the facts of the 2019 inquiry, the committee was headed by Justice S.A. Bobde.

The in-house committee procedure in the Supreme Court is an internal mechanism to handle complaints against judges, including the CJI, ensuring a level of internal accountability.

Key Details of the 2019 Inquiry Committee

The committee completed its inquiry and submitted its report, which was not made public.

Revision Table: Supreme Court Procedures

Additional Information: In-House Procedure against Judges

The 'In-House Procedure' is a mechanism established by the Supreme Court itself to look into allegations of misconduct against its own judges and judges of the High Courts. It is not a statutory procedure but a convention developed to maintain judicial accountability and independence.

• When a complaint against a Supreme Court judge is received by the CJI, the CJI can constitute a committee of three judges, including one CJI from a High Court, to investigate.
• If the complaint is against the CJI, the committee is constituted by the next senior-most judge of the Supreme Court. The committee consists of three Supreme Court judges.
• The committee conducts an inquiry, gives the concerned judge an opportunity to present their case, and submits a report.
• The findings of the committee are significant, although the procedure lacks specific enforcement mechanisms like parliamentary impeachment.

This procedure is distinct from the constitutional process of impeachment, which is the only way to remove a Supreme Court or High Court judge from office.