Indian Judiciary is at cross-roads – Safronisation is complete. The duties and responsibilities of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts in India are defined by the Constitution of India. They are bound by constitutional provisions and their oath to uphold the Constitution and the law without fear, favour, affection, or ill-will.
Duties and Responsibilities of Judges
1. Adherence to the Constitution and the Law
Judges must act without bias or partiality. The judicial independence of the Supreme Court and High Courts is guaranteed under:
Article 217:
Deals with the appointment of High Court judges.
Article 124:
Establishes the Supreme Court and specifies the appointment, qualifications, and tenure of judges.
Article 141:
The law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India.
Article 144:
All civil and judicial authorities are required to act in aid of the Supreme Court.
2. Integrity and Accountability:
Judges must adhere to the Code of Conduct for Judges, established through resolutions of the judiciary and conventions. Although not expressly codified in the Constitution, these standards emphasize maintaining dignity, integrity, and impartiality in their judgments.
3. Protection of Fundamental Rights
As custodians of the Constitution, they must ensure the protection of Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Constitution, especially when hearing writ petitions under:
Article 32: Supreme Court’s jurisdiction for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
Article 226: High Courts’ jurisdiction to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights or for other purposes.
4. Constitutional Review and Interpretation
The judiciary has the power to review the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions under Article 13 and the doctrine of judicial review, which is intrinsic to the Constitution.
5. Fair Administration of Justice
Judges must conduct trials and hearings with procedural fairness, ensuring the principles of natural justice are followed.
6. Conflict of Interest
Judges must recuse themselves from cases where they may have a conflict of interest to maintain impartiality.
7. Relevant Articles and Provisions Governing Judicial Conduct
Article 124(4) and (5):
Provides for the removal of Supreme Court judges for proven misbehaviour or incapacity, emphasizing accountability.
Article 235:
Vests control over the subordinate judiciary with the High Courts, requiring oversight by judges.
Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968:
Governs the process for the removal of judges.
The Judicial over-activism in India
Justice Gangopadhyay resigned his judicial position on 5 March 2024 and started his political journey within 2 days as a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party. He officially joined on 7 March 2024 into the party by BJP leaders Suvendu Adhikari and Sukanta Majumdar ahead of the 2024 Indian general election. He was subsequently contested for the Lok Sabha Election 2024 from Tamluk Lok Sabha constituency and became the Member of Parliament.
Justice Ranjan Gogoi’s tenure as CJI included controversial decisions like the Ayodhya verdict, which favoured the construction of a Ram temple. The timing of his nomination raised concerns about judicial independence: After retiring as Chief Justice of India (CJI), Justice Gogoi was nominated to the Rajya Sabha by the BJP-led government.
Several judgments under Justice Gogoi’s tenure, including those on Kashmir’s Article 370 and the Rafale deal, were criticized for being lenient towards governing dispensation. Critics argue that these decisions lacked the rigor expected of the judiciary in protecting constitutional values
Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, who was part of the Ayodhya bench, was appointed as Governor of Andhra Pradesh by the central government.
During Justice Chandrachud’s tenure, certain judgments were criticized for lacking depth or seriousness. For instance, some rulings on critical constitutional matters appeared to sidestep substantial issues or provided ambiguous resolutions, sparking debates about their implications for jurisprudence. However, his term also included significant efforts to modernize the judiciary and focus on individual rights.
Justice Baharul Islam’s judicial and political career is a notable case in Indian legal history. He was a Congress member of Parliament who elevated to the judiciary and later returned to politics under controversial circumstances.
Baharul Islam started his political career as a Congress MP in the Rajya Sabha in 1962, serving until 1972. In 1972, he was appointed as a judge of the Assam and Nagaland High Court. Later, in 1980, he was elevated to the Supreme Court of India, despite having retired as a High Court judge—a rare move considered politically motivated.
During his tenure, he delivered a controversial judgment in the Bihar cement scam case, exonerating the then Bihar Chief Minister Jagannath Mishra. After resigning from the Supreme Court in 1983, he contested elections and rejoined Congress, becoming an MP again, raising questions about judicial independence and the nexus between politics and judiciary. Justice Baharul Islam’s career reflects concerns over the politicization of the judiciary, a recurring theme in Indian politics across various regimes
Justice Sekhar Yadav, the sitting Judge of the Allahabad High Court, as The Wire has reported had said that India would function only as per the wishes of the “majority,” referring to the Hindu community. Justice Yadav even used the controversial term “kathmulla” to refer to a section of Muslims who engaged in practices such as having four wives and triple talaq, describing them as “fatal” to the nation.
The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) on 10th December 10, 2024 wrote to Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna urging him to order an “in-house enquiry” on the matter, by a committee to be formed for the purpose.
The Chief Justice of India has since written to Allahabad High Court to send a report on his conduct. The Opposition of the Members of Parliament are considering bringing Impeachment proceedings against him.
The CJAR said that Justice Yadav’s conduct in attending the event and delivering the controversial speech has “raised doubts in the minds of average citizens about the independence and neutrality of the judiciary, given the wide coverage it has received, a strong institutional response is needed.”
Indian Judiciary is at cross-roads – Safronisation is complete – Instances of Judicial Misconduct and Violations
Allegations of Corruption
Some judges have faced accusations of bribery or favouritism. For instance, allegations of corruption surfaced during the tenure of Justice Ramaswami, a Supreme Court judge, leading to impeachment proceedings (though he was not impeached due to lack of parliamentary majority).
Judicial Overreach
Critics have argued that some judges have ventured into policymaking, which is the domain of the legislature or executive. While this can be seen as judicial activism, excessive intervention is viewed as overreach, violating the principle of separation of powers.
Partisan Bias
Allegations have arisen that some judgments have favoured political parties or governments, leading to concerns over judicial independence.
Non-Recusal in Conflict-of-Interest Cases
There have been instances where judges have not recused themselves from cases despite having personal or professional connections, raising questions about impartiality.
Delay in Delivering Judgments
The judiciary is often criticized for delays, which can be seen as a failure to deliver timely justice. While this is systemic, individual judges can also be held accountable for undue delays.
Disregard for Collegium Transparency
The Collegium system, which governs the appointment of judges, has been criticized for a lack of transparency. Some judgments and actions within the judiciary have been viewed as perpetuating opaqueness.
Indian Judiciary is at cross-roads – Safronisation is complete – Judicial Violations Over the Years
Justice Ramaswami Case (1993):
Faced impeachment over corruption allegations but was not removed due to lack of parliamentary consensus.
Sahara-Birla Diary Case:
Questions of judicial impartiality were raised when certain judgments appeared to shield influential figures.
Supreme Court Judges’ Press Conference (2018):
Four senior-most judges publicly accused the then-Chief Justice of India of arbitrary allocation of sensitive cases, indicating a crisis in the judiciary.
Indian Judiciary is at cross-roads –Safronisation is complete. The Conclusion
While the Constitution provides inbuilt safeguards to ensure that judges act independently and impartially, instances of judicial misconduct, delays, and allegations of bias highlight the need for stronger mechanisms for accountability. Maintaining public trust in the judiciary is critical, and adherence to constitutional principles must remain the guiding principle of their duties.
Judges are responsible for interpreting laws in accordance with the Constitution and ensuring justice is delivered impartially. Concerns about the judiciary in India being influenced by political ideologies, particularly those aligned with the RSS and BJP, have been a topic of extensive discussion. Certain judgments and actions of judges have raised questions about the independence of the judiciary and its adherence to constitutional principles.
The perception of a judiciary leaning towards specific political ideologies undermines public trust in its impartiality. Concerns about judicial independence have intensified with the growing vacancies in the judiciary and delays in appointments, creating systemic inefficiencies.
The BJP government has often delayed or selectively approved judicial appointments recommended by the Supreme Court collegium. This selective interference has fuelled allegations of attempts to shape the judiciary in alignment with governmental ideologies