Judicial independence limits Bar bodies from pressuring sitting Judges; complaints must follow the in-house constitutional procedure.

The constitutional scheme protects judicial independence by confining removal of a High Court Judge to impeachment under Article 124(4) and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. Bar Councils and Bar Associations have no authority to pass resolutions or use collective pressure to compel a sitting Judge to resign on allegations touching judicial conduct, and such conduct may also raise contempt concerns. Complaints against a High Court Judge should be routed through an in-house procedure to the Chief Justice of the High Court, with consultation of the Chief Justice of India where appropriate; complaints against a Chief Justice of a High Court should be taken directly to the Chief Justice of India.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Bar Council or Bar Association can pass a resolution or take collective action to compel a sitting Judge of a High Court to resign on allegations touching the Judge's conduct. (ii) What is the proper constitutional procedure to deal with complaints against a Judge of a High Court or a Chief Justice of a High Court.

Issue (i): Whether a Bar Council or Bar Association can pass a resolution or take collective action to compel a sitting Judge of a High Court to resign on allegations touching the Judge's conduct.

Analysis: The constitutional scheme protects the independence of the judiciary and confines removal of a Judge to the procedure prescribed by Article 124(4) and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The conduct of a Judge in the discharge of judicial duties cannot be discussed or adjudged by forums outside Parliament and the constitutionally recognised inquiry process. A Bar Council or Bar Association has statutory authority to regulate advocates and professional conduct, but no authority to sit in judgment over a Judge or to use collective pressure to force resignation. Such action would trench upon judicial independence and, if it amounts to scandalising the court or interfering with the administration of justice, may also attract contempt consequences.

Conclusion: The Bar Council or Bar Association cannot lawfully compel a Judge to resign by resolution or pressure tactics; such a course is impermissible.

Issue (ii): What is the proper constitutional procedure to deal with complaints against a Judge of a High Court or a Chief Justice of a High Court.

Analysis: The Court recognised a limited in-house, self-regulatory mechanism to bridge the gap between minor misconduct and impeachable misbehaviour. Where allegations concern a Judge of a High Court, the office-bearers of the Bar should first approach the Chief Justice of that High Court with verified material, and the Chief Justice may consult the Chief Justice of India if necessary. Where allegations concern the Chief Justice of a High Court, the matter should be brought directly to the Chief Justice of India. The Bar must suspend further pressure once the constitutional head of the judiciary is seized of the matter, so that any action is taken fairly and without the appearance of external coercion.

Conclusion: Complaints should be handled through the Chief Justice of the High Court and, where appropriate, the Chief Justice of India, under an in-house constitutional procedure rather than by public resolution or pressure.

Final Conclusion: The petition did not succeed in obtaining the relief sought, but the Court laid down a future guide for handling complaints against High Court Judges through a confidential in-house process centred on judicial self-regulation.

Ratio Decidendi: The independence of the judiciary forbids extraconstitutional coercion by Bar bodies against sitting Judges, and complaints touching judicial conduct must be processed only through the constitutionally compatible in-house mechanism involving the Chief Justice of the High Court and, where necessary, the Chief Justice of India.

---