 Very rightly said, if judges are unable to get justice, how they will deliver justice. Yes. Keeping this in my mind, I resigned on 14 July 2014. You may not feel me a good speaker, the reason being I am facing a tough face in my life from last five to six years. The atrocities, the harassments which I faced while during the system, and after resigning from the system, the tough fight which I fought with my senior advocate, respected madam Indra Ajay Singh. So, good evening to all present here. First of all, before discussing the mechanism, where there is a lack of mechanism, I want to tell you that I am going to show the experiences which I and madam Ajay Singh suffered, faced during the impeachment proceedings and in-house proceedings. The judges all over the world have to maintain a very high standards of code of conduct. I briefly say that these code of conduct, what is the code of conduct it says, the behavior and conduct of members of the higher judiciary must reform the people's faith in the impartiality of the judiciary. Accordingly, an act of a judge of the Supreme Court or a high court, whether in official or personal capacity, which erodes the credibility of this perception has to be avoided. Every judge must at all times be conscious that he is under the public gaze and there should be no act or omission by him which is unbecoming of the high office that occupies and the public esteem in which that office is held. Therefore, the standard of behavior which the judges should follow is very high and it is very high than the behavior of any common man and if there is any breach or violation in this code of conduct, there is a complaint against the judges. When we check for the mechanism, then firstly, if there is a complaint reported to the Chief Justice of India, he may call for the inquiry and secondly, there is a removal proceedings, the only procedure which punishes a judge if it will result into a successful procedure. That is under Article 124 and 217 of the Constitution of India. But it is the time one critically assists the merits of the in-house. Where the judge is put under question, he has the upper hand because he still remains in the power both judicial as well as administrative power. He manages everything. He is inquired by the brother judge belongs to the same family judiciary. Same family members are inquiring the same judge. In my case, before in-house committee set up, I wrote to the Chief Justice of India that the judge in question be kindly either suspended or his administrative and judicial powers be withdrawn or he be transferred to some other state. Or receive the reply, appropriate steps will be taken at appropriate stage. Where is the mechanism which says that this is the appropriate stage? This is the appropriate time? Now, yes, there is a complaint by a subordinate judge before this judge manipulates, before this judge manages the witnesses. Yes, we suspend his powers. The answer is no, there is no mechanism. The in-house proceedings are always taken under the closed doors, no transparency, no recording of any evidence, no audio, visual or written documentation. After the report, when I requested again with the Honourable Chief Justice of India to supply me the copy of my statement or the statement of any witnesses, I caught the reply, there is no record. So where is the mechanism which will keep balance and check on the system, on the in-house inquiry, whether they are following the basic natural principles of justice or not? Thereafter, there is another mechanism. Even after the in-house report, if they hold the judge in question guilty, there is no punishment. The Honourable Chief Justice of India, in most of the case, or he has to write to the President of India to initiate the proceedings under Article 124 or 217. Is it easy for any complainant or any common person? If Indra Jaising Madam is not there, is it easy for a person like me to get 50 signatures from the Rajesh Sabha members or 100 signatures from the Lok Sabha members to initiate this process? This process has too many stages. It splits into too many stages. It's very tedious, very complex and vulnerable to failure at any time. Even if there is a report by the committee against the respondent judge or against any judge, the voting system is too tedious that you were failed to get two-third majority votes of the members of the parliament to make it a successful event. Under the Judges Inquiry Act 1963, the committee includes one Supreme Court judge, one Chief Justice of any High Court and the third member remains the jurist. All the three persons were already overburdened with their high offices and there is no mechanism, there is no mechanism in the Judges Inquiry Act which directs the three members to prioritize the inquiry and to withhold their judicial work or their legal duties. The long delays, extension after extension. The recent example of Madhya Pradesh High Court impeachment proceeding is that proceedings were started in March 2015 and finally the report was concluded on 5 September 2017. There is no mechanism even under this Judges Inquiry Act to make it a time-bound frame. Now what is the result of these long delays? In a particular case, if still the powers of the judge were not withdrawn or suspended, it resulted into a big failure, a complete failure because by the time the judge in power will manage the entire witnesses. In my own case, I was writing later to the Honorable Chief Justice of India Sir, this is the appropriate state. Sir, please withdraw. Sir, please suspend his power. I was writing to the members of the committee. I was writing to the in-house committee. I wrote to the Rajesh Hava committee. Sir, please, this is the time, withdraw the power. Otherwise, I am apprehending. All my witnesses will be won over. But my apprehensions come true. And the respondent judge with his written statement filed 22 affidavits of the witnesses out of which most of the persons were my colleagues, judicial officers, my subordinate staff and my peon. So the inquiry committee was given the task to take out the truth. But this time, due to lack of mechanism, the truth was embedded deep into the corrupt system. The entire valuable material evidence was permitted to be destructed as well as fabricated by the judge in Koshtern by misusing his powers. The committee finally submitted its report and it says at page number 972101, I want to read that they say, the transfer of the complainant ADJ and rejection of her representations was only due to the interference by the respondent judge. And he managed the same through his fellow judge. Who was the chairman of the transfer committee? This chairman of the transfer committee in Kanyamans with him, I was transferred and this chairman of the transfer committee was later on elevated as the chief justice of the Patna High Court. Committee for the whole, the exchange of the calls between the private, personal private secretary of the chief justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court and the respondent judge was suggestive of the fact that the respondent was having conversations with the private secretary of the chief justice, either to have a track of complainant's follow up, why he was following me, why he was keeping track or to ensure that the complainant does not meet chief justice. Why he wants to ensure that I do not get an opportunity to meet the chief justice. This proved the conduct of Madhya Pradesh High Court judge was a work under ill will, which madam told us that they are bound by the oath that they will not work under ill will. This was the work under ill will and the violation of the oath but the committee hold this proved misbehavior only an improper conduct, not misbehavior under article 124 and 217. The committee ignored the entire material evidence on record against the judge in question and held the charges not proved. So, in last, there is no mechanism to verify or check such type of absurd conclusions of inquiry committees by the members of the parliament who are representatives of the people of India. There is no mechanism for the woman judges to complain against high court judges as they were sexually harassed on the basis of supervisory power under article 235 of the constitution. There is a complete silence on this subject. I am crying this from last four to five years but there is a complete silence on this subject. There is no committee. There is nothing where woman judges come forward and complain and it is very difficult to complain against own portfolio judgment. There is no committee. There is no cell to complain and not only the one who was harassed. I know there are many woman judges. They are still being harassed under the garb of investigation proceedings. They were called for investigation of making inquiry against them which are mostly fabricated intentionally by the senior judges. But in last, I am the only one who has courage to come out and speak and to tell you about the lack of mechanism. Thank you.