The Supreme Court has recognized that judicial decision-making must be impartial and that even a reasonable apprehension of bias can be legally significant.
But there are many judgments which raise serious and objectively discernible concerns regarding judicial impartiality or a judgment tainted by apparent bias. Due to the backlog of 50 million pending cases, litigants must pay bribe just to get a hearing date; the inefficiency feeds the corruption. And in those rare instances when corruption is found, the accountability mechanisms provide these judges with de facto immunity. It is a win-win situation for them.
In last 15 years, constitutional violations occurred frequently. There were many instances when the executive and judiciary worked hand in hand against the Constitution. It is clearly taking place in Delhi right now.
Courts have chosen institutional comfort over the liberty of citizens, as they did not have the spine to stand up to the executive when it mattered the most.
Former CJIs with a record of deference to the Union/ Executive
1. Justice Ranjan Gogoi
During his tenure as CJI, his benches produced outcomes that benefited the present government or its political interests. And after retirement, Gogoi was nominated to the Rajya Sabha by the President. Ranjan Gogoi’s five most controversial judgments — Rafale, Ayodhya, Assam NRC, CBI Director Alok Verma, and the sexual-harassment proceedings involving himself — distinguish between verifiable facts and accusations.
Rafale (2018) — The Court declined to order a substantive review of the procurement decision. The scope of judicial review of defense procurement and the information supplied to the Court warranted examination.
Ayodhya (2019) — The Court awarded the disputed site for the temple while recognizing serious wrongdoing in the destruction of the mosque and ordering alternative land for a mosque. The reasoning and remedy deserve detailed constitutional analysis.
2. Justice Dipak Misra
In January 2018, four senior Supreme Court judges — J. Chelameswar, future CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Lokur and Kurian Joseph — publicly criticized the allocation of politically important cases by CJI Misra and raised concerns about the administration of the Court. Justice Dipak Misra’s tenure raises significant questions about case allocation and his judicial record itself contains some government-deferential decisions.
3. Justice J.S. Khehar
He deserves examination particularly because of his NJAC decision and the controversy surrounding judicial appointments. Many constitutional scholars have criticized the collegium system as giving the judiciary excessive control over its own appointments.
4. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar -
His decisions in the PMLA and UAPA contexts have attracted substantial civil-liberties criticism.
UAPA (2019) — Tightened the practical threshold for bail under UAPA by requiring courts to examine the prosecution material at the bail stage in a restrictive manner.
PMLA (2022) — Upheld major parts of the Enforcement Directorate’s PMLA framework, including controversial positions concerning arrest and the disclosure of material.
5. Justice B.R. Gavai
Former CJI Gavai had a dubious record in judicial appointments. Several legal commentators criticized decisions made under his leadership, particularly over transparency, seniority, possible conflicts of interest and the influence of the Executive. The main controversies are -
Elevation of Justice Vipul M. Pancholi to the Supreme Court despite concerns about his position in the seniority order and the regional composition of the Court. Justice B. V. Nagarathna reportedly dissented.
Recommendation of Aarti Arun Sathe, a former BJP spokesperson for appointment as a Bombay High Court judge. Her previous political association prompted public questions about the selection process.
Appointment of his nephew as a Bombay High Court judge. The circumstances created a serious appearance of a conflict of interest.
The issue is whether the system provides sufficient transparency to demonstrate that appointments are made on merit, integrity, judicial independence and fair consideration — not personal connections or political convenience.
No Chief Justice should be exempt from scrutiny simply because he occupies the highest judicial office.
Cases where the Court appears highly deferential to government power
Demonetization (2022): 4–1 majority upheld demonetization; Justice Nagarathna dissented, finding the process legally defective.
Maharashtra Political Crisis (2023): Court found important actions of the Speaker/Governor constitutionally problematic but did not restore the Thackeray government because Thackeray had resigned.
Electoral Bonds: The Court ultimately struck down the scheme in 2024, but only after it had operated for years. The timing of judicial intervention is a legitimate question alongside the outcome.
Article 370: The Court upheld the Union’s constitutional changes in 2023, raising continuing debates about federalism and the limits of executive power.
Pegasus: The Court ordered an independent technical investigation, while critics questioned whether the process delivered sufficient accountability.
Arunachal Pradesh (2016): The Court found the Governor’s actions unconstitutional, but the delay meant that the political situation had already changed substantially.
Moneymakers
Justice Paul Daniel Dinakaran had assets beyond his known sources ofincome. The Rajya Sabha managed to pass an impeachment motion but he resigned mid-inquiry and walked away with benefits.
Justice Narayan Shukla was found by the Supreme Court’s own in-house inquiry to have credibly accepted a bribe. He refused to resign. His judicial work was withdrawn. He sat at home for over a year collecting his full salary until he retired in 2020.
More recently, a fire at Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence turned up a large stack of partially- burnt cash.
Sharma, Shuka and Dinakaran are not anomalies. They follow a long, established pattern.
Judicial Propriety
The recent controversy concerned Justice Ujjal Bhuyan’s remarks about the SIR electoral-roll exercise, which was pending before the Supreme Court. Justice Bhuyan reportedly described a process which denied millions of people the right to vote as intrinsically arbitrary and inconsistent with the constitutional order. While addressing students in National Law University, Delhi, he has expressed concern about the shrinking space for dissent, including arrests and criminal cases arising from demonstrations and student protests.
Former CJI B.R. Gavai’s specific objection was that judicial propriety prevents a sitting judge from publicly commenting on an issue awaiting adjudication by the same court.
And when a group of 42 former judges issued an open letter defending the Election Commission of India (ECI) and criticizing recent allegations surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists, former CJI B.R. Gavai kept quiet and didn’t say anything. And a particular striking fact is — all of these 42 judges had a dubious records of conflicts of interest.
Banning of a Civics Textbook
On February 26, 2026, the Supreme Court of India banned a civics textbook written for 14-year-olds for including a chapter titled “The Role of the Judiciary in Our Society” which contained a line — “they fired a gunshot, judiciary is bleeding today.”
Chief Justice Surya Kant described it as a “deep-rooted, well-orchestrated conspiracy” to malign the judiciary. Supposedly, a schoolbook is enough to make the judiciary bleed. If the institution is so fragile that a book chapter can injure it, then the actual health of this institution is in dire conditions.
Recent Protests against CEC
In Delhi, during protests against Chief Election Commissioner, people have been detained without a formal order, beaten for protesting, taken out of their houses, from airplane and detained.
Article 19(1) a — Right of freedom of speech and expression
Article 19 (2) b — Right to assemble peacefully
Article 326 — Right to Vote
This was truly a watershed moment because the judiciary, for the second time in Indian history, CJI and the SC, HC Judges were giving only lectures but not interim orders. They decided that the institutional comfort mattered more than the constitutional rights of the people.
Independence does not mean immunity from accountability.
Institutional independence is meaningful only if officials can refuse unlawful political instructions without retaliation.
Can constitutional violations become widespread and persist for years if the judiciary consistently and effectively checks the Executive?
An independent judiciary is one of the most important safeguards against unconstitutional government action. When that safeguard fails to provide timely and effective remedies, executive actions that should be challenged may continue, with serious consequences for citizens.
A 2025 academic article by Rohit Sarma argues that the Supreme Court’s record from 2014 to 2024 was predominantly pro-government.
A pattern of repeated deference, prolonged inaction on urgent constitutional questions, inconsistent application of legal principles or remedies arriving too late proves that the judiciary has not fulfilled its constitutional role effectively.
The 2025 paper by Christophe Jaffrelot and Pranav Dhawan titled “What Checks and Balances? states that—
The India’s Supreme Court, has increasingly failed to keep an effective check on executive power during this period. The Court initially resisted some government efforts to influence the judiciary, but over time adopted a more accommodating, non-confrontational approach. The government sought greater influence over judicial appointments and the judiciary’s institutional independence.
The authors attribute its accommodation not only to external pressure, but also to ideological affinities, institutional vulnerabilities and corruption-related vulnerabilities among some judges.
Can the judiciary preserve the integrity of its appointment process and respond effectively to executive challenges to its authority?
Constitutional Morality
Constitutional Morality requires judges to respect the Constitution — not merely institutional authority.
Judicial independence would have little practical value if courts were unable or unwilling to examine unlawful state action when a proper case was brought before them. Equally, judicial independence should not prevent legitimate criticism of a judgment’s reasoning or its constitutional consequences.
Constitutional morality supports scrutiny of institutions, including the judiciary, without treating criticism as proof of wrongdoing.
The judiciary must be independent of the executive. It should not function as an instrument of the executive.
THE JUDICIARY IS NOT ABOVE THE CONSTITUTION.
Judges must protect citizens against unlawful state action. The constitutional duty is to administer justice impartially, not to protect or punish a political actor.
“ NO NATION CAN BE GRATEFUL AT THE COST OF ITS LIBERTY.”
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
The writer is an author. His books are -
ROAD TO HAPPNESS
EROSION OF DEMOCRACY
This book has won the prestigious literary award from Hong Kong Political Science Association.
CORPORATOCRACY
WHO IS KILLING DEMOCRACY?
THE BUSINESS OF WAR
All five books are available on — Amazon, Google Books, Apple, Kobo, Barnes & Noble, Tolino, Vivlio, Smashwords, Everand, Odilo, Gardeners, Hoopla, Ebay, Walmart, Thalia, Baker & Taylor, Borrow Box, Bibliotheca, Das Kulturkaufhaus, Feltrinelli IBS: Libri, Kinokuniya, Kyobo, Weltbild, Decitre, Bokus.com, Bol.com
Comments
Post a Comment