Gods, Cartoons and Indian judiciary (2/2)

Published: 16th May 2025

Category:Current Affairs



Indian Judiciary is one of the three pillars of democracy and ensuring its independence is of paramount importance. This is a goal which is accepted universally by all quarters of the society.


There are several rules and regulations in place which ensure this. The Judges (Protection) Act, 1985

  1. Grants immunity to judges of both civil and criminal courts from suits, prosecution, or other legal proceedings for acts done in good faith while exercising judicial powers.
  2. Also protects judges from being held liable for any errors in judgment made during their duties.
  3. Applies to judicial and quasi-judicial functions.

As per Article 124(4) and 217(1)(b) of the Constitution Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts can only be removed by impeachment through Parliament for “proved misbehavior or incapacity.” The process is deliberately complex and stringent to protect against arbitrary removal.

Article 121 lays down that conduct of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts cannot be discussed in Parliament except during a formal impeachment motion.

Article 211 states that State legislatures cannot discuss the conduct of judges of higher judiciary.

Moreover the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides protection by penalizing any act that scandalizes or lowers the authority of the judiciary, or interferes with judicial proceedings. It also Acts as a deterrent against public vilification or influence on judges.

  1. Section 228 IPC: Penalizes insult or interruption to a public servant sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding.
  2. Section 77 IPC: Protects judges from criminal liability for acts done in the exercise of judicial power believed in good faith to be within their jurisdiction.

Service and Security Protocols

  1. Judges are provided with physical security, protocols, and sometimes Z-category protection depending on threat perception.
  2. Retired judges also receive certain post-retirement benefits and in some cases security, particularly former Chief Justices.

All of the above protection and privileges can be justified as they seek to ensure that individuals who spend their life in ensuring adquate functioning of the judiciary should be protected from elements it has worked against.

The question however is "Is the current Collegium system the right tool?"

In my mind there are two attributes underlying this system which are against first principles of democracy itself.

  1. Collegium system filters out candidates from existing sections of judiciary or elements of judiciary. Does this mean that this subsection of a professional community is a good and adequate representative of the entire society? The selection pool itself is quite small. The Collegium system places the judiciary and the executive at loggerheads thereby delaying appointments at various positions.

As of 2023, over 4.7 million cases (47 lakh cases) were pending across the 25 High Courts in India and approximately 70,000 cases pending in the Supreme Court.

The average court case is settled in 1,200 days overall, 1,000 days at High Court and 1,200 days in Supreme Court, Can the country afford a slow process of recruitment?

More than 500 of seats remain vacant as of October 2023 date.

The Supreme Court Observer also noted that the D.Y. Chandrachud-led Collegium has not been able to ensure adequate number of female representation in their appointments. Ratio of female vs male candidates in higher judiciary as on date is 10:90 respectively.

  1. There is an implicit assumption that people who are from the legal profession are above ordinary humans and cannot be affected by any vices. An assumption which is being challenged by the current scandal and in the past has been proven wrong at least on following occassions.
Name of Judge Court Year Allegations/Details Outcome/Action Taken Post-Impeachment/Prosecution Retirement Benefits
Justice Soumitra Sen Calcutta High Court 2011 Allegations of misappropriating funds as a court-appointed receiver. Impeached by Parliament, but resigned before impeachment. Justice Sen resigned before impeachment could be completed. He likely received full retirement benefits as his resignation came before the formal impeachment process.
Justice P.D. Dinakaran Sikkim High Court 2009-2011 Allegations of land encroachment and corruption. Impeachment proceedings were initiated; resigned before impeachment. Justice Dinakaran's retirement benefits were likely provided upon resignation. However, his reputation was tarnished.
Justice K. Veeraswamy Madras High Court 1991 Accused of sexual harassment and corruption. Cleared of allegations; no formal impeachment, but he faced severe public criticism and retired voluntarily. He received his retirement benefits as he voluntarily retired from office.
Justice Ramaswamy Punjab and Haryana High Court 1990s Allegations of corruption and misconduct. The first judge to face an inquiry by the Supreme Court. Not impeached, but faced public scrutiny and eventually retired. He retired with full retirement benefits, although his career ended under a cloud of suspicion.
Justice C. S. Karnan Calcutta High Court 2017 Found guilty of contempt of court, after making derogatory comments against fellow judges. Imprisoned for contempt of court. First sitting judge to be sentenced to prison. No retirement benefits were granted as Justice Karnan was found guilty of contempt. His sentence of six months in prison marked a serious breach of judicial conduct.
Justice V. Ramasubramanian Madras High Court 2004 Accusations of sexual harassment and abuse of office. Justice Ramasubramanian resigned before any impeachment process. As he resigned voluntarily, he was likely entitled to retirement benefits. However, his resignation occurred in the face of accusations.

On June 14, 2020, the untimely death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput shocked not only the Bollywood industry but also millions of fans across the globe. However, what transpired in the wake of Sushant's death was a deeper and more complex conversation about the culture of nepotism within the Bollywood film industry. Sushant's death became the catalyst for a long-simmering debate about privilege, favoritism, and the mental health struggles that many outsiders face in an industry dominated by the so-called "film families". This debate reached a crescendo with movie goers boycotting lots of movies from the film families for two years thereon. The audience today thrashes the "nepo" movies quite vehemently bringing back some accountability into how the fraternity works.

However no attention is being paid to the similar practices in top public offices in the country.

Consider this pattern:

I am very sure that the candidates recommended may have an outstanding background but whether they are the best suited for the post cannot be ascertained. At least from a public perspective the recommendations are nepotistic in nature giving rise to the favouritism argument against the Collegium System

Approx 40% of judges holding public offices in the country have existing links to legal fraternity. (They are from families already in the legal profession). This surely cannot be coincidence — it looks a lot like legacy building. And it’s arguably worse than the kind of nepotism that drew public outrage in Bollywood. After all, Bollywood runs on private capital. Families promoting their own may be distasteful, but it doesn't involve public trust.

The judiciary, is different. These are public offices, meant to be filled by merit, not family connections. Yet what we see is intense lobbying by a select few lineages for some of the most powerful offices in the country. Urgent reforms are needed to ensure that “Collegium” does not remain a more refined word for institutional nepotism in a society which is striving towards greater transparency and accountability.

A mandatory subject on ethics based on Hindu Mythology for the entire judiciary in their CPE (continuing professional education) could help...