As per case facts, a practicing advocate filed a public interest litigation seeking to restrain various Bar Councils and Associations from coercing a High Court Chief Justice to resign due ... to alleged misbehaviour. The petitioner also sought a Central Bureau of Investigation probe into these allegations, with a call for the Judge's removal if found true. The Bar Association, in its defense, submitted an affidavit detailing that the Chief Justice had financial dealings concerning book publications that raised questions about his integrity, leading to a resolution demanding his resignation. The Bar argued their actions were in the interest of judicial independence, given the cumbersome impeachment process.The central legal question arose whether Bar Councils or Associations are entitled to pass resolutions demanding a judge's resignation, what impact such actions have on judicial independence, and if such conduct is constitutionally permissible.Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that while Bar Associations have a duty to maintain judicial independence, direct coercion of judges to resign is unconstitutional and undermines the judiciary. The Court established a self-regulatory procedure: if there's a complaint against a High Court Judge, the concerned Chief Justice of the High Court should conduct a confidential inquiry, consulting the Chief Justice of India if necessary. The Bar should then await the outcome. If allegations are against the Chief Justice of a High Court, the Bar should directly inform the Chief Justice of India. The Court emphasized that this in-house procedure, based on peer pressure and self-regulation, aims to address judicial misconduct, preserve public faith, and protect judicial independence without recourse to formal impeachment, which is meant for serious cases. The specific writ petition was disposed of as the first respondent had already demitted office, but the guidelines were laid down as a precedent.