In the absence of a statutory mechanism, how does the judiciary handle allegations of misconduct against sitting High Court judges? Discuss with reference to recent developments.

Article 218 read with Article 124(4) allows removal of a High Court judge only for "proved misbehaviour or incapacity" through parliamentary impeachment [1] — a route never successfully completed [3]. Between inaction and impeachment, the judiciary has built its own self-regulatory machinery.

The constitutional–statutory vacuum

• The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 activates only after MPs move a removal motion; it is a political, not disciplinary, remedy [3].
• The NJAC Act, 2014 was struck down in 2015 for violating judicial primacy, leaving no statutory appointments-cum-complaints body [5].

The In-House Procedure, 1999

• Adopted by the Full Court in December 1999, it channels complaints against an HC judge to the High Court Chief Justice or the CJI [2].
• The CJI seeks the judge's response and may constitute a fact-finding committee of sitting Chief Justices/judges [2].
• Graded remedies: counselling by the CJI, withdrawal of judicial work, advice to resign; on refusal, the President and Prime Minister are informed [2].

The Collegium's administrative route — recent developments

• In August 2026, sitting Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta wrote to the CJI alleging favouritism and maladministration by the Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court; CJI Surya Kant stated the charges would be examined through an institutional mechanism [4].
• On 31 August 2026, the Collegium recommended Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Chhattisgarh HC) as Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court, proposing immediate transfer [4] — using appointment and transfer powers under Articles 217 and 222 [1] to restore administrative order without invoking removal.

Limitations

• Resolutions seldom disclose reasons; the complainant has no appeal; transfer may relocate rather than resolve a problem.
• The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 lapsed, leaving the gap unfilled [3].

The judiciary thus substitutes peer scrutiny and administrative reassignment for statutory discipline — effective in preserving independence, weaker on transparency. Codifying the in-house procedure with time-bound inquiry, reasoned disclosure and a published Memorandum of Procedure would align judicial accountability with the rule of law the Constitution entrusts to the courts themselves.