Justice

The Constitution seeks to ensure social, economic, and political justice. It aims to address historical injustices, such as caste discrimination and inequality, through affirmative action and welfare policies. The Indian judicial system, while a crucial pillar of democracy, is marred by delays, high costs, and perceptions of leniency, compounded by a privileged class resisting change. Its definition of justice aims for fairness but often falls short for marginalised groups.

The Indian judicial system operates as a hierarchical structure, with the Supreme Court at the apex, followed by High Courts, and district and subordinate courts. Established post-independence in 1950, it inherits the British common law system, emphasising precedent and codified laws. Articles 124-147 of the Constitution outline the Supreme Court's authority, ensuring its role as the guardian of the Constitution and protector of fundamental rights.

Modern Judicial System

Historically, the modern judicial system traces its origins to ancient civilisations. Around 1754 BCE, the Code of Hammurabi in Babylon established one of the earliest codified legal systems, emphasising written laws and retribution. In ancient Greece, the development of democracy introduced jury trials and the concept of equal application of laws, laying the early groundwork for the rule of law. The Roman Empire advanced this further with the Corpus Juris Civilis (6th century CE), codifying legal principles like legal representation and the presumption of innocence, which heavily influenced civil law systems. During the Middle Ages, feudal and ecclesiastical courts prevailed.

The Magna Carta (1215) in England marked a turning point by asserting that even monarchs were subject to the law. The Enlightenment (17th-18th centuries) refined these ideas, with thinkers like John Locke and Montesquieu advocating for reason, individual rights, and the separation of powers. In the United States, the Constitution of 1787 formalised a federal judiciary, with the Supreme Court ensuring constitutional adherence. Today, judicial systems worldwide blend these historical influences into frameworks emphasising justice and fairness.

Main Principles of the Modern Judicial System

The modern judicial system rests on several core principles that ensure its integrity and effectiveness:

Rule of Law: All individuals and institutions are accountable to transparent, fair laws, preventing arbitrary governance.

Independence of the Judiciary: Judges operate free from external influence, ensuring impartiality in their rulings.

Due Process: Legal proceedings guarantee fairness, including the right to a trial, representation, and the chance to present one’s case.

Presumption of Innocence: In criminal cases, the accused is innocent until proven guilty, placing the burden of proof on the prosecution.

Equality Before the Law: Everyone, regardless of status or wealth, receives equal legal treatment and protection.

Protection of Human Rights: The system safeguards fundamental rights, such as liberty, life, and freedom from discrimination.

Separation of Powers: The Government is divided into executive, legislative, and judicial branches to maintain checks and balances.

These principles collectively aim to deliver justice, protect rights, and maintain societal order. Despite its robust framework, the system faces significant challenges that undermine its effectiveness. Recent data, as of March 15, 2025, highlights these issues, with implications for access to justice and public trust.

One of the most pressing criticisms is the system's delay, with an estimated 3.5 Crore (35 million) cases pending across high courts and district courts, as reported in 2019. This backlog is attributed to understaffing, inefficient case management, and complex procedures. The adversarial system, inherited from British law, often leads to prolonged litigation.

The long-term consequence is an erosion of faith in the judiciary. Legal proceedings in India are notably expensive, with high fees for lawyers and court costs deterring many from seeking justice. This issue is particularly acute for the poor, as highlighted in a 2016 analysis. The time-consuming nature of trials, often spanning years, adds to the financial burden, creating a barrier to access. For instance, civil cases may take 5-10 years, while criminal cases can extend over decades. This disparity exacerbates inequality, as the rich can afford prolonged litigation, while the poor are left without adequate representation.

The perceptions of leniency and slow enforcement allows some criminals to evade justice. This perception is fuelled by instances where influential individuals or groups receive preferential treatment, as noted in recent critiques. High-profile cases often see delays, with bail granted easily to those with political or financial clout.

The emergence of a privileged class of lawyers and judges is a significant concern, with data indicating nepotism within the judiciary. Approximately 50% of high court judges and 33% of Supreme Court judges are family members of those in higher echelons, as per a 2007 report. This elite group may:

Resist reforms that could modernise the system, such as adopting AI for case management or expanding alternative dispute resolution, as these could reduce their workload and income.

Protect their turf by opposing transparency measures, such as public disclosure of judge appointments or disciplinary actions.

This dynamic can lead to a lack of accountability, with critics arguing that the system prioritises the interests of legal professionals over public welfare.

Corruption and Judicial Overreach in India: A Crisis of Conscience and Accountability

The judiciary in India has long been regarded as a pillar of democracy, tasked with upholding justice and constitutional values. However, recent events in 2025 have cast a shadow over its integrity, with allegations of corruption among judges and concerns about judicial overreach in high-profile cases. The discovery of unaccounted cash at the residence of Delhi High Court Justice Yashwant Varma and the Supreme Court’s controversial rulings on the President’s role in clearing bills and the Waqf (Amendment) Act highlight systemic issues.

Despite the severity of the allegations, no First Information Report (FIR) for the cash overhaul was filed even a month later, raising concerns about accountability. Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar criticised this inaction, noting that while an ordinary citizen would face swift action, the judiciary seemed to enjoy an "unconstitutional immunity" not explicitly granted by the Constitution, which reserves such protections for the President and Governors.

The 2022–2023 Calcutta High Court Scandal. In January 2023, a sitting judge of the Calcutta High Court was implicated in a bribery case involving land disputes. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleged the judge accepted ₹2 crore to rule in favour of a real estate conglomerate. Despite evidence, proceedings stalled due to immunity under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 (TOI, 2023).

Cash-for-Bail Scandals. In 2021, the CBI arrested a retired Orissa High Court judge for allegedly demanding ₹50 lakh to grant bail in a mining scam. The case remains pending, reflecting systemic delays in prosecuting judges (Indian Express, 2021).

These incidents underscore a broader pattern of judicial corruption. A study analysing Supreme Court cases from 1999 to 2014 found that judges seeking prestigious post-retirement jobs often pandered to the government, suggesting a form of corruption through influence peddling. The lack of transparency in judicial appointments and asset declarations further fuels public scepticism, as the judiciary has resisted disclosing the assets of judges and their families, unlike other public officials.

Immunity of Judges: Legal and Practical Dimensions

The immunity enjoyed by Indian judges is both constitutionally enshrined and practically extended, creating a shield against accountability. Article 124(4) of the Constitution, read with Article 217(1)(b), stipulates that Supreme Court and High Court judges can only be removed through impeachment by Parliament for "proven misbehaviour or incapacity." This process, detailed in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, is notoriously complex, requiring a motion supported by a significant number of parliamentarians and a rigorous investigation. Historically, no sitting or former judge has been impeached or convicted for corruption in India, despite allegations.

Beyond impeachment, the judiciary has developed an in-house procedure since 1999 to address misconduct allegations. Complaints against High Court judges are examined by the Chief Justice of India or the respective High Court Chief Justice, potentially leading to an inquiry by a three-member committee. However, the outcomes of such inquiries are confidential, and actions are limited to resignation, reassignment, or, in rare cases, sanctioning prosecution. The Supreme Court’s 1991 Veeraswami judgment (K Veeraswami vs. Union of India, 1991) further entrenched judicial immunity by requiring prior approval from the Chief Justice for initiating criminal proceedings against judges, a protection not explicitly provided by the Constitution.

Case Study: Justice C.S. Karnan (2017). Justice C.S. Karnan of the Calcutta High Court publicly accused fellow judges of corruption. Instead of investigating his claims, the Supreme Court sentenced him to six months in jail for contempt, showcasing how immunity protects the institution more than integrity (Scroll, 2017).

This de facto impunity has been criticised as a barrier to addressing corruption. Legal experts argue that the judiciary’s self-regulation lacks transparency and effectiveness, with the confidentiality of inquiry reports obscuring accountability. The failure to file an FIR in the Justice Varma case exemplifies how these mechanisms protect judges, contrasting sharply with the swift action taken against ordinary citizens.

Judicial Overreach

The Supreme Court’s recent actions have also raised concerns about judicial overreach, particularly in cases involving the President and the Waqf (Amendment) Act of 2025.

Case Involving the President. On April 8, 2025, a two-judge bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan delivered a landmark judgment in the Tamil Nadu case, setting deadlines for the President to act on bills referred by governors (within three months) and for governors to act on state assembly bills (within one month). This ruling, invoking Article 142 to "do complete justice," was hailed by some as a safeguard against executive delays but fiercely criticised as judicial overreach. Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar called Article 142 a "nuclear missile against democratic forces," arguing that the judiciary overstepped its constitutional role by directing the President, who enjoys immunity under Article 361. Critics, including Attorney General R Venkataramani, noted that the judgment was delivered without hearing the President or the central government, violating principles of natural justice.

The use of Article 142 in this case exemplifies judicial overreach, as it encroached on the executive’s domain. Article 142, intended as an exceptional remedy, has been increasingly used in routine governance disputes, transforming the Supreme Court into a "super parliament," as Dhankhar noted. This undermines the separation of powers, a cornerstone of Indian democracy, by allowing unelected judges to dictate terms to the executive.

Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025. The Supreme Court’s handling of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, further illustrates concerns about overreach. The Act, passed by the Lok Sabha on April 3, 2025, and the Rajya Sabha on April 4, 2025, with Presidential assent on April 5, 2025, aimed to reform the management of Waqf properties by including non-Muslim members in Waqf boards and councils and removing the "waqf by user" provision. On April 17, 2025, a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna began hearing petitions challenging the Act’s constitutional validity, expressing concerns about provisions like the inclusion of non-Muslims and the denotification of Waqf properties. The court issued an interim order on April 18, 2025, directing that no Waqf properties be denotified and no appointments be made to Waqf boards until the next hearing on May 5, 2025. If a law needs such revision, then it should be pre-audited for its constitutional alignment before being presented in the Lok Sabha rather than after the approval.

Societal Environment and Judicial Morality

The judiciary does not operate in a vacuum; its moral compass is influenced by the broader societal environment. Corruption in India has reached a level of acceptance where "not getting caught is smartness, and being caught is just bad luck." This normalisation stems from a disconnect between laws and the public conscience, where legal frameworks fail to inspire ethical behaviour or impose long-term consequences. When judges witness executives and politicians engaging in large-scale corruption, they too are tempted to follow suit, perceiving such behaviour as a societal norm.

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, imposes minimal penalties (2–7 years) compared to the billions siphoned in scams, which is weak deterrence. A 2023 Transparency International report found 68% of Indians view judicial corruption as “commonplace,” with 42% admitting to paying bribes for favourable rulings.

The lack of deterrent consequences exacerbates this issue. The judiciary’s immunity mechanisms, combined with the inefficacy of anti-corruption laws, create an environment where judges face minimal risk for unethical conduct. For instance, the Prevention of Corruption Act applies to judges, but procedural barriers like the need for prior approval hinder prosecutions. Moreover, the societal acceptance of corruption among other branches of government—executives securing lucrative contracts, politicians amassing wealth through illicit means—normalises such behaviour, eroding the judiciary’s moral standards.