Rajendra Babu, J.
1. A Senior Advocate practising in this Court has filed this petition purportingto be one under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in public interest primarilyfor the publication of the inquiry report made by a Committee consisting of twoChief Justices and a Judge of different High Courts in respect of certainallegations of alleged involvement of sitting Judges of the High Court ofKarnataka in certain incidents and also for a direction to any professional andindependent investigating agency having expertise to conduct a thoroughinvestigation into the said incident and to submit a report on the same to thisCourt.
2. In the Chief Justices' Conference held in December 1999, 16 clausesformed part of the Code of Conduct in addition to the declaration of assets bythe Judges and In-House procedure was suggested in the event of any complaintagainst any Judge. However, sanction for these guidelines in absent. In ourconstitutional scheme it is not possible to vest the Chief Justice of India with anycontrol over the puisne Judges with regard to conduct either personal or judicial. In case of breach of any rule of the Code of Conduct, the Chief Justice can choose not to post cases before a particular Judge against whom there are acceptable allegations. It is possible to criticise that decision on the groundthat no enquiry was held and the Judge concerned had no opportunity to offer hisexplanation particularly when the Chief Justice is not vested with any power todecide about the conduct of a Judge. There is no adequate method ormachinery to enforce the Code of Conduct. Article 124 provides for appointmentof Judges of this Court and also their removal. Similarly, Article 217 deals withthe appointment and removal of the Judges of the High Court. In the Judges'Enquiry Act of 1968 provisions are made for investigation into misbehavior orincapacity of a Judge. It may be noted that since Judges of the superior Courtsoccupy very high positions, disciplinary proceedings which exist in the case of allother employees cannot be though of.
3. The Committee referred to by the petitioner is stated to have beenconstituted as a part of In-House procedure. A Judge cannot be removed fromhis Office except by impeachment by a majority of the House and a majority ofnot less than 2/3rd present and voting as provided by Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution of India. The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 has been enacted providingfor the manner of conducting inquiry into the allegation of judicial conduct upon aMotion of Impeachment sponsored by at least 100 Lok Sabha members or 50Rajya Sabha members. The Presiding Officer of the concerned House has thepower to constitute a Committee consisting of three persons as enumeratedtherein. No other disciplinary inquiry is envisaged or contemplated either underthe Constitution or under the Act. On account of this lacuna In-Houseprocedure has been adopted for inquiry to be made by the peers of Judges forreport to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India in case of a complaint against theChief Justices or Judges of the High Court in order to find out truth of theimputation made in the complaint and that In-House inquiry is for the purpose ofhis own information and satisfaction. A report made on such inquiry if givenpublicity will only lead to more harm than good to the institution as Judges wouldprefer to face inquiry leading to impeachment. In such a case the only courseopen to the parties concerned if they have material is to invoke the provisions ofArticle 124 or Article 217 of the Constitution, as the case may be. It is notappropriate for the petitioner to approach this Court for the relief or direction forrelease of the Report, for what the Chief Justice of India has done is only to getinformation from peer Judges of those who are accused and the report made tothe Chief Justice of India is wholly confidential. The said report is only for thepurpose of satisfaction of the Chief Justice of India that such a report has beenmade. It is purely preliminary in nature, ad hoc and not final. If the Chief Justiceof India is satisfied that no further action is called for in the matter, theproceeding is closed. If any further action is to be taken as indicated in the In-House procedure itself, the Chief Justice of India may take such further steps ashe deems fit. Therefore, in the hierarchy of the courts, the Supreme Court doesnot have any disciplinary control over the High Court Judges, much less theChief Justice of India has any disciplinary control over any of the Judges. Thatposition in law is very clear. Thus, the only source or authority by which theChief Justice of India can exercise this power of inquiry is moral or ethical andnot in exercise of powers under any law. Exercise of such power of the ChiefJustice of India based on moral authority cannot be made subject matter of a writpetition to disclose a report made to him.
4. Heavy reliance has been placed upon the decisions of this Court in S.P.Gupta v. Union of India and Anr., : [1982]2SCR365 , The State of U.P.v. Raj Narain and Ors., : [1975]3SCR333 , Union of India v. People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and Anr. : [2002]3SCR696 , Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government of India and Ors. v. Cricket Association of Bengal and Ors., : [1995]1SCR1036 . The principles stated in these decisions have been reconsidered by this Court in People's Union forCivil Liberties (PUCL) and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr., : [2003]2SCR1136 .It is no doubt true that in a democratic framework free flow of information to thecitizens is necessary for proper functioning particularly in matters which form partof public record. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel of thepetitioner do not also say that right to information is absolute. There are severalareas where such information need not be furnished. Even the Freedom ofInformation Act, 2002, to which also reference has been made by the learnedcounsel of the petitioner, does not say in absolute terms that informationgathered at any level in any manner for any purpose shall be disclosed to thepublic. The inquiry ordered and the report made to the Chief Justice of Indiabeing confidential and discreet is only for the purpose of his information and notfor the purpose of disclosure to any other person. The principles stated in theabove decisions are in different context and those principles cannot be invoked ina case of this nature, which is of exceptional category. Therefore, the firstcontention advanced on behalf of the petitioner by Shri Shanti Bhushan for adirection to release the said Report has got to be rejected in limine.
5. Reference has also been made by Shri Shanti Bhushan to a statementmade by Hon'ble Shri Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji, former Chief Justice of India,while withdrawing the work from Justice V. Ramaswami. Thereafter, heconstituted a Committee consisting of three Judges as to what further course ofaction he should take. It is stated that the Report of said Committee was alsomade public. We are afraid that no parallel or analogy can be drawn on thisincident. In the first place, the learned Chief Justice in that case unilaterallywithdrew work from Justice V. Ramaswami. That was his own decision andperhaps to tell the public as to what he was doing he made the said statement towhich reference has been made by Shri Shanti Bhushan. Again, havingwithdrawn the work but when it became necessary to reassign the work pursuantto the report of three Judges, he felt appropriate that the said Report should bemade public. One thing should be borne in mind that in either of these incidentsJustice V. Ramaswami had not participated on the ground that the only mannerin which he could be proceeded against is as provided under Article 124 of theConstitution.
6. Further, the claim for a direction to any professional and independentinvestigating agency to conduct an inquiry into the said alleged incident cannotbe accepted because appropriate course for the petitioner would be to approachthe concerned authorities as enumerated in Article 217 of the Constitution.
7. If the petitioner can substantiate that any criminal offence has beencommitted by any of the Judges mentioned in the course of the petition,appropriate complaint can be lodged before a competent authority for takingaction by complying with requirements of law. There is hardly any need for thisCourt to give any such direction in the matter. Therefore, we decline to entertainthis petition.
8. This petition stands dismissed.