A man who had purchased a flat in the now demolished apartments in Maradu, Kerala, approached the Kerala High Court on Thursday alleging judicial misconduct and seeking directions to the Chief Justice NV Ramana of the Supreme Court and Chief Justice S Manikumar of Kerala High Court to initiate in-house investigation into the complaints. (Mathew Z Pulikunnel v. Chief Justice of India).Single-judge Justice PB Suresh Kumar heard the matter which had come up for admission today and adjourned it to Monday. However, Justice Kumar made some strong preliminary remarks regarding the course taken by the petitioner in preferring a writ petition alleging misconduct and not wrong judicial decision."Isn't this something that falls under wrong judicial decision for aggrieved party to take up? There are two different separate watertight compartments. Once it falls into the realm of wrong judicial decision there is no question of misconduct. If writ petitions are entertained like this, no judge would be able to discharge duties. How do you expect a judge to render judgement fearlessly?", the Judge askedJustice Kumar also remarked that this would have an effect on justice dispensation process. "I am only saying this is a very delicate matter. If the judges of this court feels that tomorrow onwards, with every writ petition, another writ petition will come alleging malpractice or misconduct and seeking direction to the chief justice to take action, situation will be very condemnable, in my opinion.".Interestingly, he also enquired whether the counsel for the petitioner had made himself familiar with the judgement of the Supreme Court in Indira Jaising v Registrar General,Supreme Court and Anr. which dealt with in-house procedure for looking into complaints against judges. It was held that because judges of superior courts occupy high positions, disciplinary actions cannot be thought of as is with the case of all other employees. Moreover, the findings of the in- house procedure are confidential based on which CJI could then choose to initiate further action or close the proceeding. .The Court was hearing two petitions filed by an overseas citizen of India who had, in 2007, purchased an apartment in a housing project promoted by Jain Housing and Construction Ltd (JHCL) in Maradu, Ernakulam. However, in 2020, by orders of the Supreme Court, the buildings were demolished for violation of environmental norms. The petitioner, through advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy, approached the Court alleging misconduct on the part of three judges of the Kerala High Court who had heard matters related to the case..Further, he also challenged the in-house procedure for investigating complaints against judges, adopted by the full court of the Supreme Court, claiming that it does not meet the requirements of transparency, checks and balances as envisaged in the Constitution of India. .Justice Kumar directed Shenoy to make himself familiar with the judgement in Indira Jaising and adjourned the matter for further hearing on Monday, September 6.