2025-Unprecedented Year For Judiciary

To borrow Charles Dickens' words, 2025 was the “best of times, it was the worst of times” for the 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 Judicial work was withdrawn from Justice Varma and he was transferred to Allahabad High Court, his parent High Court.Subsequently, the then CJI constituted a three-member committee to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...

2025-Unprecedented Year For Judiciary

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Tags