2025-Unprecedented Year For Judiciary

The year began with an extraordinary incident which sent shockwaves not just to the judiciary but also to the legal fraternity after a fire incident led to the accidental discovery of piles of burnt currency at a judge's official residence.

It went on to witness some rare constitutional developments, including presidential references and impeachment motions, as well as a series of undignified attacks on the office of the Chief Justice of India and the judiciary in general.

Accidental cash row discovery

Reportedly, in March, unaccounted cash was found at the then judge of the Delhi High Court, Justice Yashwant Verma's official residence, when a fire brigade had reached the judge's residence to douse the fire.

What followed was the initiation of the Supreme Court's In-House inquiry procedure prescribed in Supreme Court in C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee (1995) by the then Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna; the first step of which begins with the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court submitting an enquiry report to the CJI.

In an unprecedented move, not just the enquiry report of the CJ of the Delhi High Court, which found prima facie allegations against Justice Varma to be true, but also the videos and photos were uploaded on the Supreme Court's website, signalling a transparent procedure adopted. Judicial work was withdrawn from Justice Varma and he was transferred to Allahabad High Court, his parent High Court.

Subsequently, the then CJI constituted a three-member committee to inquire into the allegations, which also found prima facie evidence against Justice Varma. The then CJI Khanna asked Justice Varma to retire or resign, which the latter refused, resulting in the then CJI advising the President and the Prime Minister that impeachment proceedings can be initiated against the judge.

In July, motions for the impeachment proceedings were moved in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. In the meantime, Justice Varma challenged the In-House procedure in the Supreme Court, which came to be dismissed in August by a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih.

The bench said the petition can't be entertained because Justice Varma had participated in the in-house procedure, and later, when he got an unfavourable outcome, he questioned the procedure's sanctity. However, it remarked that the video and photos of the alleged incident should not have been made public as it can cause prejudice.

Days after this order, the Lok Sabha speaker admitted the impeachment motion and constituted a three-member Committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

This was also challenged by Justice Varma in the Supreme Court on the grounds that the 1968 Act requires the motion to be admitted in both Houses and the Committee to be constituted jointly when it is moved in both Houses together.

Whereas, in this case, the Lok Sabha Speaker constituted the Committee unilaterally without awaiting the decision of the Rajya Sabha chairman. Notice has been issued in this petition.

Justice Pardiwala and his “controversial” judgments

Governor, deemed assent and Presidential reference

This year, Justice JB Pardiwala remained in controversy for his “overreaching” judicial decisions, which began with his pronouncement of the then most-awaited Tamil Nadu Governor's decision in April.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that the actions of the Tamil Nadu Governor, Dr RN Ravi, in withholding assent for 10 bills, the oldest of them pending since January 2020, and reserving them for the President after the State legislature re-enacted, were “illegal and erroneous”.

It held that Bills are deemed assented to, and for the first time in history, 10 Bills became law using Article 142 of the Constitution. Holding that the Governors can't chokehold the State legislature, the bench held that the Governor doesn't have a pocket veto to sit over the Bills and laid down timelines for the President and the Governor to act under Articles 200/201 for assent of the Bill. The President was given 3 months to make a decision when a Bill is reserved to her by the Governor.

This judgment drew sharp criticism from the then Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar, who went so far as to say that Article 142 of the Constitution has become a “nuclear missile” available to judges against democratic forces.

Days after the judgment, President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143 of the Constitution, seeking advice from the Supreme Court on 14 questions, including whether the Court can prescribe timelines when there is no such “constitutionally prescribed timeline”.

After 10 days of hearing, the Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar gave an opinion on reference in November, stating that the Court can neither impose timelines nor is there any concept called “deemed assent”.

While the Court made it crystal clear that it is not sitting in appeal, it effectively overruled the two-judge bench's judgment by holding that the directions of the two-judge bench on timelines shall not be treated as ratio decidendi.

The bench also went on to hold that the Governor can reserve the re-enacted Bills for the President, which was the very basis on which the two-judge bench had held that the Tamil Nadu Governor acted not in bonafide manner.

Stray dog order, and the three-judge bench the next day

In another order, which continues to garner attention, a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala in July took suo motu cognisance of a news item "City hounded by strays and kids pay price" published in today's Delhi edition of Times of India”.

What was unexpected was that on the first day of hearing, the bench passed blanket directions to immediately relocate all stray dogs in the Delhi-NCR to dog shelters without considering whether there are adequate shelters to begin with. It ordered penal action against those obstructing against implementation of the order and questioned if the so-called animal lovers bring back kids killed by rabies.

A day later, the matter was shifted by the then CJI Gavai to a three-judge bench and was stayed by a comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria. It noted that the stray dogs, which were picked up, must be released back to the same area after sterilisation.

Withdraw judicial work from him, and recall next day

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, in August, passed a very harsh order against Justice Prashant Kumar of the Allahabad High Court, ordering him to sit with a senior judge in a division bench.

It also ordered that no criminal matters should be allotted to this judge after he refused a criminal case on the grounds that a civil remedy for the recovery of money was not effective. However, four days later, the bench recalled its order, noting that the then CJI Gavai had requested that the strictures against the High Court's judge may be reconsidered.

In a related development, thirteen Judges of the High Court also wrote to the Allahabad High Court Chief Justice, urging him not to implement the directions of the Supreme Court.

Justice Bela and farewell

Justice Bela M Trivedi was refused a farewell, apparently because she often found herself on the wrong side of the bar. In one of the orders she passed before her retirement, she initiated contempt action against two advocates, noting that they filed vexatious petitions.

After members of the Bar protested, the bench recalled its order. In another matter, she had passed guidelines for the recording of advocates' appearances in cases. The bench held that Senior advocates or AoRs, who are physically present and arguing will be recorded in the record of proceedings.

She is also known to have ordered a CBI inquiry against the advocates in a matter where a fake SLP was filed, fabricating the signatures of the parties.

The Bar Council of India had requested the Supreme Court Bar Association and Supreme Court AoR Association that an official farewell should not be denied to the judge, who retired on May 16.

Even the then CJI Gavai deprecated this move.

Judicial propriety, concerns over Collegium recommendations and issues of judicial transparency

Trend of overturning judgments of earlier benches

Various questions have been raised about judicial propriety over the recent trend of recalling and overruling judgments of earlier benches.

For instance, this year, the Vanashakti judgment, which barred the Union from granting post-facto environmental clearance, was “recalled” by a three-judge bench. The reason for the recall is not very clear, and one of the two judges who were a part of the original bench, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, dissented and termed it a “step in retrogression”.

Then, the Supreme Court relaxed the absolute long-standing firecracker ban in NCR for Diwali without giving adequate reasons or relying on empirical data, amidst the deteriorating AQI, especially during this time.

Judicial policing

In some of the matters which dealt with the life and liberty of individuals, it was seen that the Supreme Court judges increasingly made remarks, often showcasing their own personal beliefs/stance.

While dealing with a criminal defamation case against the leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, over the remarks made by him about the Indian Army in the context of the 2020 Galwan Valley clash with China, Justice Dipankar Datta remarked that if Gandhi were a true India, he would not have made those remarks.

In another case involving Gandhi over the comments he made against VD Savarkar, Justice Datta orally questioned how the freedom fighters should be treated.

While granting interim protection against arrest to YouTuber Ranveer Allahabadia (popularly known as Beer Biceps) for offence of obscenity over his remarks during an episode of the "India's Got Latent" show, Justice Surya Kant remarked that Allahabadia was “dirty mind, perverted”.

In another case, CJI Kant made sharp oral remarks equating Rohingya refugees to “illegal intruders digging tunnels” to enter India. This drew criticism from NGOs, while retired judges raised concern over “motivated attacks” against the CJI.

Collegium and judicial independence

The Supreme Court Collegium, which always remains under scrutiny, came under sharp criticism, especially during CJI BR Gavai's tenure, after it was reported that the Collegium headed by him recommended his nephew as a judge of the Bombay High Court, which was swiftly cleared by the Government.

Interestingly, the Bombay High Court CJ, who recommended the elevation, was recommended for elevation to the Supreme Court a week later.

The criticism peaked when the Collegium recommended the elevation of Justice Vipul Pancholi without revealing that one of the judges of the Collegium, Justice BV Nagarathna, had dissented.

She has reportedly stated that his appointment would be “counter-productive” as Justice Pancholi was preferred over meritorious judges, and that the Supreme Court already has two judges from the Gujarat High Court. She also had flagged that Justice Pancholi was once transferred from Gujarat to Patna High Court, which was not a routine transfer.

Later, a day before his retirement, the then CJI Gavai had said that Justice Nagarathna's dissent had no merit.

The final nail in the coffin came when Justice Atul Sreedharan's(known for his pro-liberty judgments) transfer to the Chhattisgarh High Court was countermaned, and instead, he was transferred to the Allahabad High Court. In the Collegium's notification, it was mentioned that the reconsideration was sought by the Centre.

Disturbing precedents

The Court's decision in a petition seeking an inquiry into the affairs of Reliance's Vantara Wildlife Centre raised serious issues of judicial accountability.

In what was termed the most hurried decision, the bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B Varale had constituted a special investigation team headed by former Supreme Court Judge Justice J Chelameswar to inquire into the allegations.

Surprisingly, the SIT submitted the report within one week on questions which also included whether there had been compliance with all laws in the acquisition of animals from India and abroad, particularly elephants.

The report was accepted by the bench, and it further issued directions that the report should not be disclosed to third parties, all investigations, including by the media, stand closed, and no further complaint or proceedings shall be entertained. It even went ahead to allow the respondents to initiate remedies against misinformation.

In another strange order, the Supreme Court, while holding that sexual harassment alleged by a faculty member of the West Bengal National University of Juridical Science against the Vice Chancellor of the University is time-barred, it directed that the judgment shall be made a part of the VC's resume so that it “haunts the wrongdoer forever”. Later, the directions were deleted.

Undignified attacks against the office of the Chief Justice of India, and the judiciary

This year saw some of the most undignified attacks against the CJI's office.

CJI responsible for "civil wars"

It began with the highly irresponsible comment by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, saying that the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna was “responsible for all civil wars happening in India” and that the “Supreme Court is only responsible for inciting religious wars in the country”.

There were also comments by the then VP Dhankar saying that the "Parliament is supreme" and that "there is no visualisation in the Constitution of any authority above Parliament."

These were statedly made in the wake of the Supreme Court's intervention in the petitions challenging the Waqf Amendment Act. The Court, however, refrained from taking any action against him, saying that the public's confidence in the judiciary cannot be shaken by "such absurd comments."

Shoe-hurled against CJI

However, the attacks, especially stemming from social media, continued. In a petition seeking reconstruction of a dilapidated Lord Vishnu Idol at a temple in Khajuraho, out-of-context reporting led to a systematic attack against the then CJI Gavai.

The then CJI Gavai had to explain that he respects all religions and that the comment was made in the context of the fact that the temple was under the jurisdiction of ASI.

However, sheer ignorance continued, and it ended up with an advocate Rakesh Kishore hurling a shoe at the then CJI during a hearing and shouting that “India will not tolerate disrespect towards Sanatan Dharma”.

The bid to attack the CJI drew widespread condemnation. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Opposition Leader Rahul Gandhi, Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge, Chief Ministers MK Stalin, Pinarayi Vijayan, Siddaramaiah, Revanth Reddy, Mamata Banerjee and many other political leaders condemned the act and expressed solidarity with the CJI.

Both SCOARA and SCBA have issued statements condemning the act as scandalising the office of the CJI and have urged for initiation of contempt proceedings. Moreover, the Bar Council of India has issued an interim order suspending the advocate registered with the Bar Council of Delhi from practice with immediate effect.

Defamatory attacks 

The attacks continued, and the year ended with the defamatory attacks on Justice G.R. Swaminathan of the Madras High Court in the backdrop of his passing an order permitting temple devotees to light a lamp at a stone pillar atop the Thirupparankundram hill near a dargah, and later reprimanding the State Government for obstructing the implementation of the order.

Members of Parliament from the DMK and other opposition parties also moved a motion before the Lok Sabha Speaker seeking his impeachment, which was criticised by former judges of the Supreme Court and various High Courts. A PIL is pending before the Supreme Court seeking action against those responsible for making the alleged defamatory remarks against Justice Swaminathan.

Conclusion

It is not wrong to say that this year was overwhelming for the judiciary and the legal fraternity, as while we witnessed rare constitutional developments, the year was overshadowed by unwarranted events, which left a lasting scar. It may have been a spring of hope, but it ended in the winter of despair.