Codes of judicial conduct: 1997 Restatement, In-House Procedure, removal of judges
Why in news: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan's NALSAR address of 4 October 2026 drew a former CJI's objection that propriety bars sitting judges from commenting on sub judice matters.
India's higher judiciary regulates its own conduct through the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, a 16-point code of 1997, and an In-House Procedure for complaints. Removal needs a special-majority address by both Houses of Parliament under Article 124(4). Justice Ujjal Bhuyan's 4 October speech has revived debate on judges commenting on pending matters.
Syllabus: Prelims · Polity & Governance; GS2 · Executive & Judiciary; GS4 · Probity in Governance
Why this matters for UPSC
GS2 judiciary and GS4 codes of conduct. Prelims asks Article 124(4), Article 121 and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 removal steps; Mains asks how the Restatement, the In-House Procedure and the Bangalore Principles balance independence with accountability.
In short
Codes of judicial conduct set how Supreme Court and High Court judges behave on and off the Bench; in India they rest on judicial self-regulation, while removal needs Parliament.
Self-regulation shields independence but leaves the code unenforceable; giving it statutory force with a clear speech rule would add the missing accountability.
Why it matters
A litigant whose case is sub judice, still before a court, needs to trust that the judge has not already made up his mind. If a judge speaks in public on a question that may reach his court, the losing side may doubt the verdict, however sound. A citizen who suspects a judge of misconduct faces a different gap. The complaint goes to a Chief Justice and is weighed in private by fellow judges, while the formal remedy, removal, needs a special majority in both Houses of Parliament. Everyday lapses, such as accepting hospitality or hearing a friend's case, are too small for removal, so only the private route reaches them. The larger question is how to keep judges free from outside pressure while making them answer for their conduct.
Prelims pointers
- Article 124(4): each House must back the removal address by a majority of total membership and two-thirds present and voting, in the same session, on proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
- Article 217(1)(b) and Article 218 apply the Article 124(4) method, and Parliament's procedure law under Article 124(5), to High Court Judges.
- Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: a removal notice needs at least 100 Lok Sabha or 50 Rajya Sabha signatures; the Speaker or Chairman may admit or refuse it.
- Under the 1968 Act, the inquiry committee is one Supreme Court judge, one High Court Chief Justice and one distinguished jurist; a 'not guilty' finding ends the motion.
- Article 121: Parliament may not discuss a judge's conduct in the discharge of duties except on a removal motion; Article 211 bars State Legislatures from discussing it at all.
- In-House Procedure panels: three colleagues for an accused Supreme Court judge; for a High Court Chief Justice, a Supreme Court judge plus two other High Courts' Chief Justices.
- UN link: the Bangalore Principles complement the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, which the UN General Assembly endorsed in 1985.
- Article 124(7): a retired Supreme Court Judge may not plead or act in any court or before any authority in India.
Practise a UPSC-style question
With reference to the removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court of India, consider the following statements:
1. A notice of motion for removal given in the Rajya Sabha must be signed by at least 100 of its members.
2. The inquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 includes a distinguished jurist.
3. Each House must support the removal address by a majority of its total membership and two-thirds of members present and voting.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- (a) 1 and 2 only
- (b) 2 and 3 only
- (c) 1 and 3 only
- (d) 1, 2 and 3
Show the answer
Answer: (b) 2 and 3 only
Answer: (b) 2 and 3 only. The Rajya Sabha threshold is 50 members; the other two statements are accurate.
Statement 1: incorrect. Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 needs 50 Rajya Sabha members to sign; 100 is the Lok Sabha figure.
Statement 2: correct. The three-member committee has a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice and a distinguished jurist chosen by the Speaker or Chairman.
Statement 3: correct. Article 124(4) requires a majority of total membership and two-thirds of those present and voting in each House, in the same session.
Eliminate: Statement 1 is incorrect because the Rajya Sabha needs 50 signatures, not 100. Out: (a), (c), (d).
Trap: Swapped attribution. The 100-member figure is real but belongs to the Lok Sabha, not the Rajya Sabha.
Remember: Removal notice: 100 Lok Sabha or 50 Rajya Sabha members; a special majority in each House.
More Explainers
- Crypto in Indian law: virtual digital assets, tax and PMLA cover Economy
- The collegium system for appointing and transferring higher court judges Polity
- Protected Area, Restricted Area and Inner Line Permits Polity
- Scheduled Tribe seats in Assemblies: Article 332 and Goa's 2025 Act Polity
- Ballot papers and EVMs: where India still votes on paper Polity
- Gelephu Mindfulness City: Bhutan's special zone on the Assam border World & IR
- Nuclear fusion, the tokamak and India's role in ITER Sci-Tech
- Gilgit-Baltistan, CPEC and India's sovereignty objection World & IR
- India-Nepal electricity trade: how Nepal sells power to India World & IR
- Infant mortality and child malnutrition among Scheduled Tribes National
- Genocide Convention, 1948: the legal test and who can judge it World & IR
- Chola bronzes: lost-wax casting and Nataraja iconography National