Judging the Judges

In democratic countries all over the world, an impression is steadily gaining ground that politicians are the same everywhere. While politicians are supposed to frame their policies and programmes based on the national, social, and economic interests of society, it is increasingly happening that such worthy causes are inevitably intertwined with self-interest, narrow regional concerns, and even family interests. In such circumstances, nepotism and corruption have become a considerable part of political activities in democratic countries. This is so despite the fact that well-oiled systems, such as elections for voting politicians into power, are in place.

Several discerning observers have started thinking that democratic systems have severe limitations and that what is claimed in theory as superior democratic practices, in effect, remain diluted and sometimes even counterproductive.

Need for Check and Control

A consensus view is emerging that politicians in all democratic countries need some form of check and control.

With this view, the judiciary has emerged as a very important pillar in democratic countries, where judges are expected to rectify the wrongs of politicians, punish the culprits, and contribute to overall probity in public and private life.

Image of the Judiciary

While such expectations are evident, there is also an impression gaining ground that the judiciary suffers from several inadequacies and limitations, as judgments are often delivered based on the whims and fancies of judges, who may interpret the rule of law according to their own thought processes and perspectives.

In such a scenario, it has become difficult to predict judgments, and sometimes some judgments create doubts in the minds of the public about whether there might be ulterior motivations behind them. This is not a healthy trend.

Mahatma Gandhi said that a man of truth should also be a man of care. Obviously, this dictum applies to judges even more than to any other profession.

Indian Judiciary – Case Study

To cut a long story short, the judiciary scenario in India can be viewed — particularly since India is a live and vibrant democracy, despite its many issues, vast population, and different priorities of individual groups, as well as the practice of multiple religions and the speaking of many languages.

State of the Indian Judiciary

In India today, the pendency of cases in courts increased from 33 million in 2018 to around 50 million in July 2023. There are hundreds of under-trials in prisons who have been awaiting trial for several years. Many cases have not seen the completion of judicial proceedings or judgments even after more than a decade.

There are many occasions when judgments delivered by district-level courts are overruled by High Courts, and judgments by High Courts are overruled by the Supreme Court (apex court). This leaves people in doubt as to which court is right and which is wrong. People have also begun to wonder whether multiple judgments for the same case could exist. Doubts have also arisen as to whether the calibre and commitment of judges in the Supreme Court are superior to those in the High Courts, and whether judges in High Courts are superior to those in lower courts. If this were the case, then the existence of multiple layers of courts at all would be a moot question frequently raised.

Proceedings of a Symposium

A symposium was held in Chennai on 6th September 2025 on the judicial process in India, where a few retired Chief Justices, leading lawyers, and experienced academicians participated and expressed their views.

A former Chief Justice of India expressed the view that the judicial process often led to acquittals at the end of the day, but not before the accused had spent several days in prison without trial. He blamed the authorities for this situation but refrained from blaming the judges. There was also a view expressed that procedural complexities affect justice delivery, though he did not clearly suggest how to overcome such complexities.

A senior advocate attributed the delay and huge pendency of cases to vacancies of judges in the courts. However, he left everyone in doubt as to whether merely filling these vacancies would solve the problem of case pendency.

This senior advocate refrained from making observations on the high cost of litigation and the unacceptably huge fees charged by lawyers, which only the wealthy and influential groups can afford. He also did not comment on bail applications being granted by higher courts to those punished by lower courts, often when senior advocates appear and argue for bail by cleverly interpreting existing laws or exploiting loopholes. While people feel that getting bail has become very easy for politicians, businessmen, and the rich, the senior advocate chose not to share his views on this issue.

Speaking at the symposium, another retired Chief Justice of India stated that the conviction rate for criminal cases in India was never more than 20%. However, he did not comment on criminal cases, including huge corruption cases against politicians and businessmen, that remain without judgments even after hearings have been completed for several years.

The Additional Solicitor General expressed his view that bail was not a matter of right and that it was up to the judiciary to examine the application and pass a specific order. He further stated that there was no straightforward formulation for bail decisions, which depend on the satisfaction of the judicial officer.

Finally, an academician said that serious and honest lawyers are needed to bring justice to poor people.

However, no comments were made about adjournments given repeatedly in court cases, causing significant delays based on the whims and fancies of judges.

What People Think

One cannot but recall the recent incident when a Delhi High Court judge was caught after several lakhs of rupees in cash were found in his house during a fire accident. Despite the fact that the guilt of the person has been firmly established by a committee of Supreme Court judges, he has yet to be removed from office, though suspended. With his impeachment process proceeding at a snail’s pace in Parliament, one is left wondering what the ultimate outcome will be. The disturbing question is whether judges are accountable to anyone at all.

There are several instances when senior judges have accepted political positions immediately after retirement, such as becoming a member of Parliament or accepting the post of Governor. This raises doubts in the minds of the public about whether these judges are being rewarded for particular judgments. Of course, there is no basis for such doubts, but judges should remember Mahatma Gandhi’s view that a man of truth must also be a man of care.

In the past, there were times in India when judges refused to attend functions organised even by close relatives to maintain their public image. However, today we see senior judges participating in public meetings where ministers facing corruption charges share the stage. At times, senior judges have even visited the residences of Chief Ministers against whom judicial proceedings are underway.

The process of appointing judges also leaves much to be desired, especially since judges should not only be honest but also appear to be honest and competent. The government’s move to appoint a commission and establish a proper procedure for judge appointments is being resisted by judges. The logic behind such resistance is unclear and questionable.

All such observations and comments on the judicial process in India clearly establish that the judiciary is facing a credibility crisis.

Where Would the Judiciary Go from Here?

Being judges, they must honestly introspect and find strategies and methods, evolve self-guidelines, and fine-tune the judgment processes to restore public confidence in the judiciary. Who better to do this than the judges themselves?

Judges should realise that with faith in politicians rapidly declining, if trust in the judiciary is also allowed to erode, the democratic system itself could be deemed no longer the ideal form of governance. In such a case, what better form of governance is there? None.