Many In Judiciary Suffer From 'More Loyal Than King' Syndrome : Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court on Sunday commented that some judges follow the "more loyal than the king" approach, denying bail even in deserving cases, leading to prolonged incarceration of individuals.

Justice Bhuyan said there is a rising trend of a reckless registration of FIRs even for trivial matters, such as public demonstrations, social media posts or memes. These matters ultimately reach the Supreme Court, and the Court is often called upon to constitute Special Investigation Teams (SIT), consuming sufficient judicial time.

He was speaking at the 1st Supreme Court Bar Association National Conference' 2026 on the topic "The Role of Judiciary in Viksit Bharat". Addressing the criticisms aimed at the judiciary for case backlogs, Justice Bhuyan said that the executive machinery was a major contributor to case pendency through frivolous appeals and baseless FIRs.

"We have noticed that there is reckless registration of criminal cases, FIRs, in recent times. Judiciary has not directed their registration. For trivial matters, such as public demonstrations, agitations, even by students, sometimes even for putting up memes and social media posts, FIRs are registered, and investigations go on. Matters come up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has to constitute Special Investigation Teams. This consumes sufficient judicial time."

Justice Bhuyan then admitted that some in the judiciary were also to be blamed for causing the prolonged incarceration of individuals by showing too much deference to the investigating agencies.

"Prolonged incarceration- I must admit, many within the judiciary continue to suffer from the more loyal than the king syndrome. As a result, people continue to languish in jails for months and months together."

Overuse of PMLA and UAPA cases

Justice Bhuyan then threw light on the overuse of statutes like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).

He recalled the remarks made by him on an earlier occasion that while the PMLA was a potent weapon to fight the menace of money laundering, it would lose its potency through overuse, which was happening right now.

Referring to statistics as of March 31, 2025, Justice Bhuyan pointed out that there were 7771 Enforcement Case Information Reports (ECIR) filed. The number of arrests made was 1031. Trial concluded in only 47 cases. "How do you justify keeping them in jail for months and years together when the maximum sentence is 7 years?" Justice Bhuyan asked.

Coming to the UAPA, which Justice Bhuyan called "another draconian law",  the following figures, from the information furnished by the Ministry of Home Affairs to the Lok Sabha, were revealed :

In 2019, 1984 arrests were made, and only 34 were convicted. The conviction rate was 1.74%.

In 2020, 1321 were arrested and only 80 were convicted. The conviction rate was 6%.

In 2021, 1621 were arrested and only 62 were convicted. The conviction rate is about 3%.

In 2022, 2636 were arrested and only 41 got convicted. The rate of conviction is about 1.5%.

In 2023, 2941 were arrested and 118 were convicted. The conviction rate is about 4%.

Justice Bhuyan pointed out that the data shows that the conviction rate has been consistently as low as around 4%.

"What does it indicate?. It may indicate overuse, I won't say misuse. How much weight courts have to take due to this. This shows that vast majority of persons arrested were not convicted, indicating that many arrests may have been premature and unsupported by sufficient evidence. This contributed directly to case backlogs and pendency, besides raising fundamental questions of liberty. With a conviction percentage being less than 5% and a chance of acquittal being 95%, the question is why should an accused be confined to jail for years and years together?. 5 years or 6 years without charges being framed, without a chargesheet being filed, can this go on? This can't be a model for Viksit Bharat," Justice Bhuyan said.

'Viksit Bharat' should have more space for dissent and debate

Justice Bhuyan added that his idea of Viksit Bharat was an economic model where there was equal distribution of wealth, where the gap between the haves and the have-nots was not wide. Viksit Bharat should have inclusive development, equitable distribution of wealth, and mainstreaming of those sections who have suffered historical wrongs.

Further, he emhpasised that in Viksit Bharat, dissent should not be criminalised.

"In Vikit Bharat, there should be more space for dissent and debate. Dissent should not be criminalised. There should be more tolerance towards divergent views. There should be more tolerance towards diverse views and criticism."

Justice Bhuyan then referred to his comments at a meeting of the Telangana Judicial Officers' Association last month, where he cited the instances of parents in an Odisha school refusing school midday meals just because they were prepared by Dalit women.

"In Viksit Bharat, we cannot have parents saying their children will not have food prepared by Dalit women. That cannot be a Viksit Bharat model.  We cannot have Dalit men being made to sit in corridors and people urinating on them. Viksit Bharat cannot countenance such societal faultlines. Respect for the individual must be protected."

He said that the words expressed by Justice Chinappa Reddy in the Bijoe Emmanuel case that "our tradition teaches us tolerance; our Constitution practices tolerance; let us not dilute it" must be followed.

State the biggest litigator

Touching upon the issue of case pendency, Justice Bhuyan said that the State was the biggest litigator, leading to docket explosion. The number of cases being handled by a judge in India on a daily basis is unparalleled. It is humanly impossible for a judge to deal with 400 or 500 cases in a day.

In this context, he referred to a recent instance of a judge of the Allahabad High Court stating that he could not pronounce judgment in a case as he was hungry and tired from hearing cases till 7 PM.

He pointed out that officers file frivolous appeals, even in matters covered by decisions, since they want to play safe. This was burdening the judiciary.

Also, the budgetary allocation for the judiciary in States was less than 1%, and with such meagre allocation, judicial infrastructure cannot be developed.  A work of a judge is not 10-5, and it is 24 x 7, he pointed out, stressing the need for adequate support staff and infrastructural amenities. He pointed out that in Brazil, the allocation for the judiciary was nearly 4%.

Reflecting on the role of the judiciary, Justice Bhuyan stressed that courts must maintain institutional balance. The judiciary, he said, can neither be an eternal critic nor a cheerleader of the government, but must function as a “sentinel on the qui vive,” faithfully guarding constitutional principles.

He also expressed reservations about the judiciary aligning itself with political slogans such as “Viksit Bharat.” While acknowledging the political executive's prerogative to set developmental goals, he cautioned that the judiciary, though an organ of the State, remains distinct from the political executive and must preserve its constitutional distance.

Justice Bhuyan suggested that a more appropriate milestone for the judiciary would be the year 2050, when both the Constitution and the Supreme Court would complete 100 years. Emphasising institutional legitimacy, he said judicial authority ultimately rests not on the purse or the sword, but on public trust and goodwill.