IS THE SANCTITY OF THE JUDICIARY IN PERIL?

There has been an outrage in the public due to the recent incident that has brought the judiciary in the spotlight but it is not the first time the judicial system has been undermined. The cash row incident of Justice Yeshwant verma reported on March 14 2025 was of such grave velocity that has again unlatched the past judicial stains. The media played the major part, so did the politicians and the bar associations.

A three member committee was formed by the then CJI Justice Khanna to probe regarding the burnt pile of cash found in the out house of the residence of justice Verma, and after rigorous investigation, the three member committee found justice Verma guilty. The report was sent to the president and the PM to initiate the impeachment of justice Verma and accordingly the said report was also made public. Some praised the act of making the Report public for judicial transparency while many luminaries found major loopholes in the report with lots of speculations of unaccounted adverse inference drawn against the victimised judge. The impeachment motion of Justice Verma was set in motion on 21.07.2025 while Justce verma knocked the doors of the Supreme court with a writ challenging the concocted allegations in the report. (A special bench is formed by the Supreme Court to hear on his plea).

 

HIGH PEDESTAL.

The judiciary is considered as the last hope of our democracy as it safeguards the constitution but given the past unprecedented events, is the sanctity of the judicial system in peril? The Judges of the higher judiciary are consecrated by the Constitution and their removal is possible only after following an elaborate parliamentary procedure; they are also protected by other precedents like immunity from criminal prosecution as laid down in the V. Ramasawai judgment.(AIR 1992 SC 2219) These special privileges grants Judges to discharge their duty fearlessly and independently specially from the executive but over the last three decades, there have been a lot of graft allegations, unprecedented incidents, abuse of power, rumors and mishaps against sitting judges which were not just whispers in the bar corridors but also a nation wide-talk that has questioned and undermined the integrity and credibility of the judiciary and, it has been very disturbing, for the common people, the legal fraternity and especially for the young members of the bar like me to fathom those kinds of criticism towards this great institution.

 

THE COLLEGIUM SYSTEM: A LEAP TOWARDS JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE

The first leap towards judicial independence was taken when the Collegium system was formed by way of a precedent in the first judges’ case (S.P. Gupta vs President Of India And Ors. AIR1982SC149) in 1981, even though the constitution did not envisage a provision for one. It was officially set to motion in the second judges case (Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record vs Union Of India, AIR 1994 SC 268) and the third judges’ case (In Re: Under Article 143(1) Of the Constitution vs Unknown, AIR 1999 SC 1) where it was decided that the Chief justice along with four senior most judges would decide on all the administration relating to judicial appointments, transfers and inquiries in the higher judiciary barring the executive’s direct interference. However, in 2014, the parliament vide the 99th constitutional amendment introduced the National Judicial Amendment Commission replacing the collegium system subsequently a 4:1 majority of the Supreme Court struck down this amendment in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record -Association v Union of India,(Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record vs Union Of India, (2016) 5 SCC 1) in 2015 on the ground that it was violative of the principle of “independence of the judiciary.”

Ever since the court struck down the NJAC, there have been a lot of debates and criticism that questioned the closed doors dealings of the collegium system. Many retired judges, sitting judges and jurist questioned the integrity of the collegium system and its lack of transparency and biasness with respect to appointments, elevations and in-house inquires.

 

JUDGES WHO FACED INQUIRIES AND IMPEACHMENTS

In India's history of judicial impeachment, there have been many judges who have faced parliamentary proceedings after being found guilty by the three-member committee formed by the CJI. Justice V. Ramaswami Retd. Judge Supreme Court of India was the first, who was found guilty of extravagant spending without following due process. However, in 1993 his motion for impeachment failed in the parliament for lack of votes. His case also led to the widely criticised judgment where the judges of the higher judiciary cannot be criminally prosecuted.

Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court was the second judge to face parliamentary procedure after he was found guilty of corruptions and misappropriation of funds and was the first judge set to be impeached after an overwhelming majority vote in the Rajya Sabha. However, the judge resigned before he could be impeached from office.

The third judge was justice P.D Dhinkaran, who was facing inquiry for corruption. He also approached the Apex Court that one of the members of the enquiry committee was biased. However, his plea was not entertained by the Apex Court. He resigned before his motion could be voted in the Rajya Sabha.

Apart from the above three judges, there have been numerous impeachment motions moved in the parliament against sitting judges for all the right and the wrong reasons. Judges who’s impeachment motions were placed and were unsuccessful were Justice A.K Ganguly for allegation of sexual harassment in 2015, the same year Justice Pardiwala during his time in the Gujarat HC also faced parliamentary motion for his controversial remarks on reservations, Justice C.V Nagarjuna for discrimination and corruption in 2018, the former CJI Justice Deepak Mishra for his allegations of malpractices in judicial administration, political inclination and biasness, he also had the scar of the famous Judge Loya verdict and had a moral flaw which marked the most controversial retirement in Judicial history in 2018 and recently, in December, 2025, Justice Shekhar yadav for his controversial remark against the Muslim community.                           

JUDGES WHO FACED CRIMINAL CHARGES/IMPRISONMENT AFTER RETIREMENT.

There were also many judges who faced in-house inquires and were subject to criminal proceedings after retirement with the approval of the CJI. The CBI arrested Justice Shamit Mukherjee of the High Court of Delhi after he resigned in 2003 for the DDA Scam. In 2008, Justice Niramal Yadav of Punjab and Haryana HC was found guilty of corruption by the in-house enquiry committee, the CJI sanctioned her prosecution by the CBI but was recently found not guilty after 17 years of prolonged trial. Justice SN Shukla of Allahabad high court was found guilty by the in house committee for corruption in 2017, he refused to resign and was also not impeached despite the CJI appraising it to the parliament and all his judicial work was withdrawn until his retirement in 2020.

Then, there was also one of the most unfortunate precedents, as the eminent Mr. Fali Nariman acclaimed it to be. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in In Re: Hon'ble Shri Justice CS Karnan (2017) 7 SCC 1) convicted Justice CS Karnan for contempt of court in 2017 and imprisoned him for six months after retirement for judicial misconduct. He had alleged cast based harassment and had accused many sitting judges including the then CJI J.S Khehar for being corrupt. It was indeed an unfortunate precedent and should never be repeated.

 

OTHER ALLEGATIONS AND CONTROVERSIES.

Then, there were allegations against sitting judges, which were very controversial in barrooms, and alleged conspiracies against the masters of the roster that media blatantly lashed out in the public square.

There were grave allegations of corrupt practices against the former CJI Justice Balakrishnan and Justice CK Prasad, sexual harassment allegations against the then CJI Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Swatanter Kumar, etc.

Apart from these incidental allegations, there were also disharmony and dissension within the institution with respect to seniority, case allocations, roster changes, administrative operations, daily procedures on mentioning urgent matters, and political affiliations. There was no collegiality in the bench. When four senior most judges of the Supreme Court addressed its resentment on the memorandum of procedure administered under the then CJI Justice Dipak Misra to public media in 2018, it highlighted how the highest court of judicature was divided and lacked unity in the public's eye. Justice RC Lohati in Tirupati Balaji Developers (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar 2004 SCC OnLine SC 537 (also noted by Mr. Fali S. Nariman in his book God Save the Hon’ble SC) had quoted Harry T. Edwards, Chief Judge, US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit on the need for collegiality in the bench. Where it said “ Collegiality means an attitude among judges that says, we may disagree on some substantive issues, but we all have a common interest and goal in getting the law right. … An attitude of collegiality means, in practice, that we respect one another views, listen to one another, and, where possible, aim to identify areas of agreement, even when one judge disagrees with another, It should be a common endeavor that each of us is, almost always, acting in good faith according to his or her own view of what the law requires. … When there is little or no judicial collegiality, there is less incentive for judges to exercise self-restraint. … Collegiality is important not only for working together effectively, but also at a deeper structural level. An attitude of judicial collegiality helps reinforce judges' incentives to behave in a principled and responsible fashion, any discussion of judicial independence, either at the level of institutions or individuals, should take this practice of collegiality into account.”

Then, there were other controversies regarding biased Collegium System, caste favouritism for elevations, transfers of judges as punishments, lucrative in-house inquires, etc. The lists of allegations and alleged incidents or to formally put it, unaccounted assertions in the functioning of the Supreme bench and the collegium system has been long and some whispers in the bar have been so credible to think the otherwise

THE ROLE OF THE BAR AGAINST THE MISUSE OF POWER BY THE BENCH.

The bar, owing its fealty towards the institution and to ensure the sanctity of the Judiciary, has tried its ever best to keep the judicial autonomy at check; overtime many jurists, senior advocates, retired judges have expressed its displeasure towards the bench’s integrity by way of open letters expressing their grievances, many have attempted to file writs, PILs etc. to initiate criminal prosecution against sitting judges who were alleged for graft charges, suomoto cognizance for judicial misconduct and have also attempted to include five senior most judges of the collegium along with the CJI in the definition Chief Justice in the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 as “framing of the roaster cannot be left to sole discretion of the CJI.”(Shanti Bhushan v. Supreme Court of India, (2018) 8 SCC 396) but have empathically failed. 

Many bar associations have protested against transfers and have boycotted oath ceremonies of tainted judges, many have criticised the collegium system and it’s functioning, but all these strong grievances and adamant protests from the bar have led to no transparent action till date until, recently the then CJI Justice Khanna, while enquiring with the Justice Verma’s incident of unaccounted cash haul found at his residence, made the letters, affidavits and electronic evidences public in the supreme court website. While some lauded the act, many said the otherwise.

 

THE ROLE OF THE MEDIA IN INFLUENCING THE PUBLIC OPINION ON JUDICIARY.

The role of media and its yellow journalism has to be held majorly accountable for contaminating the public’s faith towards the judiciary and tarnishing its repute. Indeed, some allegations against the judges were alleged to be true and proven, but many confuted incidents, against sitting judges were put to media trial which gravely polluted the purity of the institution. The media, is considered the fourth pillar of our democracy, it ought to yearn to practice good journalism and confirm facts and information before maligning the Judges and misleading the public. It is true that judges have to be honed with thick skin but it does leave a deep imprint if one, who has dutifully built his/her reputation in the bar and the bench for over 40 odd years, becomes a victim of media trial for baseless conspiracies and allegations. From the potent words of the Great Justice Krishna Iyer in In re: S. Mulgaokar vs Unknown. (1978) 3 SCC 339 where he penned that “Poise and peace and inner harmony are so quintessential to the judicial temper that huff, “haywire” or even humiliation shall not besiege; nor, unveracious provocation, frivolous persiflage nor terminological inexactitude throw into palpitating tantrums the balanced cerebration of the judicial mind…. Truth's taciturn strategy, the testimony of history says, has a higher power than a hundred thousand tongues or pens. Silence is a sign of strength since our power is wide and we are the prosecutor and judge.”

But do these wise words of a great judge penned in 1978 while exercising its contempt jurisdiction over an author of a news article that criticised a sitting judge hold value towards the criticism and allegations framed against the sitting judges today.

The Great Justice Iyer on the judiciary tackling with criticism further remarked that “the integral yoga of shanti and neeti is so much the cornerstone of the judicial process that criticism, wild or valid, authentic or anathematic, shall have little purchase over the mentation of the Court. the shafts of acid speech; and, how alluring it is to succumb to the temptation of argumentation where the thorn, not the rose, triumphs.” and the judges while exercising its contempt jurisdiction over these media houses for bad journalism, Justice Iyer has further stated that “Justice is not hubris; power is not petulance and prudence is not pusillanimity, especially when Judges are themselves prospectors and mercy is a mark of strength, not whimper of weakness. Christ and Gandhi shall not be lost on the Judges at a critical time when courts are on trial and the people (“We, the People of India”) pronounce the final verdict on all national institutions.”

 

THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY AND ITS IMPORTANCE.

The courtroom is considered a sacred place (at least for the members of the legal fraternity), and the constitution its holy book and, it is the independence of the judiciary the keeps the institution sacrosanct.

The independence of judiciary has an inseparable link with its credibility and credibility holds a lot of weight and is more than what meets the eye in our country’s democracy.  Credibility is lost when there is a slight slip of abuse of power and as the eminent Justice HR Khanna critically acclaimed in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 that “the best safeguard against the abuse of power is public opinion.” which our democracy greatly complies to, and sometimes in overabundance.

The authority of the judges should not be misused just because they sit on a high apostle. They should uphold the socialist secular ideology of our democracy and strive to work as one. It ought to be an endeavor of every judge to uphold the rule of law and the constitutional values. Justice PN Bagwati quotes the eloquent words of Justice Krishna Iyer in the first judges’ case that “The concept of independence of judiciary is a noble concept, which inspires the constitutional scheme and constitutes the foundation on which rests the edifice of our democratic polity. If there is one principle which runs through the entire fabric of the entire Constitution, it is the principle of the rule of law and under the Constitution, it is the judiciary which is entrusted with the task of keeping every organ of the State within the limits of the law and thereby making the rule of law meaningful and effective. The judiciary stands between the citizen and the State as a bulwark against executive excesses and misuse or abuse of power by the executive, and therefore, it is absolutely essential that the judiciary must be free from executive pressure or influence and this has been secured by the Constitution makers by making elaborate provisions in the Constitution.”

In the same case Justice Pathak notes “while the administration of justice draws its legal sanction from the Constitution, its credibility rests in the faith of the people. Indispensable to that faith is the independence of the judiciary. An independent and impartial judiciary supplies the reason for the judicial institution; it also gives character and content to the constitutional milieu.”

“The credibility of the judiciary is a pious trust reposed by the people, and this trust evades when judiciary fails” remarked J.S. Verma, J. in the Second Judges case.

Judicial autonomy can only be achieved by being fair, fearless and reasonable without any political, social or economical pressure. “The Judge’s dignity on the bench can be adjudged by the quality of his/her judgments, he himself is to be so highly reserved that he/she should be above suspicion from the common eye: like Caesar’s wife” as the great Justice Iyer portrays. The social philosophy of the constitution and the independence of judiciary have nowhere been elaborated better than he has.  He writes,  “The Independence of the Judiciary is not genuflection; nor is it opposition to every proposition of government. It is neither Judiciary made to Opposition measure nor Government's pleasure. (Mainstream, November 22, 1980) The tycoon, the communist, the parochialist, the faddist, the extremist and radical reactionary lying coiled up and subconsciously shaping judicial mentation are menaces to judicial independence when they are at variance with Parts III and IV of the Paramount Parchment. Judges should be of stern stuff and tough fiber, unbending before power, economic or political, and they must uphold the core principle of the rule of law, which says, "Be you ever so high, the law is above you." This is the principle of independence of the judiciary, which is vital for the establishment of real participatory democracy, maintenance of the rule of law as a dynamic concept and delivery of social justice to the vulnerable sections of the community. It is this principle of independence of the judiciary, which we must keep in mind while interpreting the relevant provisions of the Constitution.”

The judiciary even without its vested armory is the guardians of the Constitution and to uphold the majesty of the rule of law and protect the public’s faith, Justice A.S. Anand in Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand. (1998) 1 SCC 1 he penned in the following words, “the erosion of credibility of the judiciary, in the public mind, for whatever reasons, is the greatest threat to the independence of the judiciary.  The societal perception of Judges as being detached and impartial referees is the greatest strength of the judiciary and every member of the judiciary must ensure that this perception does not receive a setback consciously or unconsciously”.

 

JUDICIAL REFORMS AND THE STEP FORWARD.

Undoubtedly, Judicial process takes a considerable long time in India; ‘justice delayed but not denied’ is more attributable to the current legal paradigm. It is also a fact the judicial administration, case efficiencies and disposals have been irregular since inception, but it is also totally untrue that these irregularities are due to the inefficient judicial administration of justice and the incompetent panel of judges the institution has or has had.

I refuse to believe that the judiciary is completely unscrupulous, tainted and strongly reprimand the press and its concocted yellow journalism. There have been many brave and bold Judges that sat on that high chair who have contributed to many precedents that have upheld the rule of law, laid down many good laws that validated the principles of democracy, stricter laws against those who have undermined the principles of the constitution and many instances where it has overreached the powers of the executive to keep its atrocities at check.

It is because of the little foul players in the Institution, bad journalism and publicity, that has tainted the whole lot and hindered the public confidence at large. Indeed, the inefficiency of the administration of judiciary at the lower and the higher level has been a major problem in this country. There is lack of appointments of deserving candidates to the higher judiciary and most of the Courts and Tribunals are not functioning as per its sanctioned strength and are overburdened. There are almost 4.5cr pending cases across all courts and tribunals and 10% of them are over 10 years old; with the increasing number of fresh cases being registered every day, it is high time a robust mechanism is implemented for efficient judicial administration.

 

CONCLUSION

The judiciary is still the last hope of our democracy; it is the pious duty of the bench to maintain the sanctity of the constitution and, the responsibility of the bar and the members of the legal fraternity to sustain the dignity of the bench. No matter how high the constitution positions a judge, he/she is still a human after all and is subject to many natural or unnatural human emotions and flaws. It is due to the years of practice, training, trials and errors, these emotions are tamed, curbed and kept under restraint and with the endless practice of humility and dedication to duty, this human is put to the high chair. But despite having honed all the qualities that makes a good judge, the independence of the judge is still questioned. Justice Venkataramiah in the Judges case has beautifully remarked that “…with all these measures being there still a Judge may not be independent. It is the inner strength of Judges alone that can save the judiciary. The life of a Judge does not really call for great acts of self-sacrifice; but it does insist upon small acts of self-denial almost everyday.”

The institution comes first and its sanctity and purity should always be maintained no matter how many temporary bad robes stains the courtrooms. But if the other pious robes fail to identify and clean these stained walls, the institution will fail and tyranny will prevail. The constitution and the rule of law dies and it is ‘Only God who can save the Hon’ble Supreme Court.’ (Excerpt from ‘God Save the Hon’ble SC’ by Fali S. Nariman).