Judicial Ideology

In the case of C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee and Ors. it was held by the
court that the respective Bar Associations cannot take suo motu cognizance if they find
something wrong in the conduct of the judges or how the proceedings in the court are carried out.
The constitutional provision of impeachment of Judges as provided under Article 124 of the
Constitution of India mentions misbehaviour or incapacity as grounds to impeach a judge. If the
Bar Council or Bar Associations believe that a judge is not carrying himself as per the standards,
they cannot ask the judge to resign, by themselves. They can make a suggestion to the Chief
Justice of India who will probe into the matter. If the findings of investigation show that the
judge was involved in any kind of misbehaviour and if there is a wilful misconduct and wilful
abuse of power, the process of impeachment will be initiated against the judge by moving a bill
in both houses of the Parliament. If passed by a majority in the Parliament, the bill shall go the
the President of India who shall carry out the process of impeachment.

The judges arrived at this decision keeping in mind the integrity of the position held by judges in
India. The trust of the people from the judicial system must not fade away and the independence
of judiciary must also be secured. Keeping in mind all these factors, it was held that the Bar
Associations cannot make any suggestions to the judges relating to resignation. They can only
send suggestions/ recommendations to the Chief Justice of India who shall probe into the matter
with utmost caution to maintain the integrity and ensure that no mistake is done during the long
and tedious process. This procedure would not only facilitate nibbing in the bud the conduct of a
Judge leading to loss of public confidence in the courts and sustain public faith in the efficacy of
the rule of law and respect for the judiciary, but would also avoid needless embarrassment of
contempt proceedings against the office bearers of the Bar Association and group libel against all
concerned. The independence of judiciary and the stream of public justice would remain pure
and unsullied. The Bar Association could remain a useful arm of the judiciary and in the case of
sagging reputation of the particular Judge, the Bar Association could take up the matter with the
Chief Justice of the High Court and await his response for the action taken thereunder for a
reasonable period.