Who Judges The Judges? – India Legal

By Inderjit Badhwar

There are moments within the lifetime of a democracy when uncomfortable truths should be confronted, regardless of how deeply embedded they’re in our nationwide consciousness or establishments. That is one such second.

The Indian judiciary, lengthy thought of the final bastion of hope, equity, and constitutional steadiness, finds itself at a deadly crossroads. The cover story on this situation of India Authorized, written with attribute perception and readability by our Contributing Editor Dilip Bobb, raises a elementary query: what occurs when these entrusted with decoding and upholding the legislation are themselves accused of violating it?

That this query is not rhetorical makes this story worthy of our cowl. For the primary time in current reminiscence, two sitting Excessive Courtroom judges face impeachment proceedings—one for allegedly hoarding unaccounted money in his official residence, and the opposite for delivering an overtly communal speech at a political gathering. In any functioning democracy, this may spark nationwide outrage, political introspection, and judicial soul-searching. In India, it has as a substitute triggered a gradual, muted institutional response—an inertia that factors to deeper systemic flaws.

On the coronary heart of this exposé lies a disturbing paradox. The judiciary is the one establishment constitutionally empowered to carry all others accountable. But, when allegations come up from inside its personal ranks, the method turns into opaque, sluggish, and inclined to political delay. The impeachment mechanisms, because the story outlines, are riddled with bottlenecks and shielded by procedural fog. Worse nonetheless, the prevailing in-house inquiry system is cloaked in secrecy, providing little public reassurance.

This isn’t merely a matter of inner disciplinary housekeeping. This can be a nationwide second of reckoning.

The integrity of the judiciary is the bedrock of public belief in democracy. With out that belief, justice itself dangers turning into an phantasm—a fragile contract between citizen and state that begins to dissolve when arbiters of justice are seen as above scrutiny. The stakes couldn’t be greater.

And but, these present episodes usually are not remoted aberrations. As Dilip Bobb’s deeply researched piece exhibits, India’s judicial historical past is dotted with scandals—unexplained property, political appointments post-retirement, bribe-taking allegations, and judicial “fixers” who function behind the scenes. Many of those circumstances pale into oblivion, not as a result of the accused had been confirmed harmless, however as a result of the system lacked the desire—or braveness—to pursue accountability to its logical finish. This sample of selective amnesia can’t proceed.

To its credit score, the present Chief Justice of India, BR Gavai, has acknowledged the corrosive impact of judicial misconduct on public confidence. His current remarks in London, which we now have highlighted within the cowl story, name for transparency, moral reform, and institutional introspection. He spoke with candour about post-retirement authorities appointments for judges, the necessity for public asset disclosures, and the judiciary’s accountability to rebuild belief via decisive motion.

However the accountability can’t lie with one particular person, regardless of how excessive the workplace. Restoring legitimacy requires systemic reform—reform that features an impartial investigative physique exterior the judiciary’s personal management, time-bound disciplinary processes, and the braveness to uphold the legislation even when it implicates these in black robes.

For India Authorized, reporting on judicial accountability just isn’t merely a journalistic obligation—it’s central to our editorial mission. We exist to light up the authorized course of, expose its failings, and champion its ideas when they’re below menace. This cowl story exemplifies that dedication.

The judiciary should stay impartial, sure—however it should additionally stay answerable. Independence doesn’t imply immunity. It doesn’t imply silence within the face of misconduct. And it actually doesn’t imply accepting the notion that judges, in contrast to elected officers or bureaucrats, are above reproach just by advantage of their place.

Allow us to be clear: this story just isn’t an indictment of your complete judiciary. There are literally thousands of judges throughout India who serve with honour, integrity, and quiet dedication below troublesome circumstances. However their credibility—and that of the establishment they serve—is compromised when accountability is absent on the high.

Within the international rankings of judicial effectivity, India sits embarrassingly low. Courtrooms are clogged, verdicts delayed, and justice postponed. That alone ought to have prompted soul-searching. Add to it these obtrusive questions of corruption and misconduct, and the silence turns into inexcusable.

The general public has a proper to demand higher. Parliament has an obligation to behave. And the judiciary should summon the braveness to police its personal ranks—or undergo a construction that can. As a result of a judiciary that refuses to guage itself will quickly be judged by others—by historical past, by the individuals, and by the very Structure it was created to defend.

That’s the reason this story isn’t just a headline. It’s the very coronary heart of our Republic’s present problem. And that’s the reason it belongs on our cowl.