According to Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, public trust in the judiciary is negatively impacted by cases of corruption and misbehaviour, which may erode trust in the system’s overall integrity.
He also discussed judges’ post-retirement employment at a roundtable conference on “Maintaining Judicial Legitimacy and Public Confidence” in the UK Supreme Court. He stated that it raises “significant ethical concerns and invites public scrutiny” if a judge resigns from the bench to run for office or accepts another government appointment right after retirement.
According to the CJI, on the issue of corruption, the Supreme Court has continuously taken prompt and proper action to address the wrongdoing whenever similar cases of corruption and misconduct have surfaced. “Furthermore, every system, no matter how robust, is susceptible to issues of professional misconduct. Sadly, there have been instances of corruption and misconduct that have surfaced even within the judiciary. Such occurrences inevitably have a negative impact on public confidence, potentially eroding faith in the integrity of the system as a whole. “However, the path to rebuilding this trust lies in the swift, decisive, and transparent action taken to address and resolve these issues. In India, when such instances have come to light, the Supreme Court has consistently taken immediate and appropriate measures to address the misconduct,” the CJI said.
The CJI’s comments follow accusations of corruption against Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court following the finding of a sizable sum of money from his official Delhi house.
According to CJI Gavai, “judicial legitimacy” and “public confidence” are related, and in any democracy, the judiciary must be regarded as an institution that deserves to hold truth to power in addition to administering justice. “Legitimacy and public confidence are not secured through coercion of command but through the credibility earned by courts. Any erosion of this confidence risks weakening the judiciary’s constitutional role as the ultimate arbiter of rights. Transparency and accountability are democratic virtues,” CJI Gavai said.
In response to the frequently discussed topic of judges taking on post-retirement positions, he stated that the timing and character of these engagements could erode public confidence in the judiciary’s independence by giving the impression that judicial decisions were impacted by the possibility of future political involvement or government appointments. “Another point of discussion is post-retirement jobs taken by judges. In India, judges are subject to a fixed retirement age. If a judge takes up another appointment with the government immediately after retirement, or resigns from the bench to contest elections, it raises significant ethical concerns and invites public scrutiny,” he said.
The CJI noted that when a judge runs for office, it can raise questions about the independence and impartiality of the judiciary since it could be interpreted as a conflict of interest or as an effort to curry favour with the government. “In light of this, many of my colleagues and I have publicly pledged not to accept any post-retirement roles or positions from the government. This commitment is an effort to preserve the credibility and independence of the judiciary,” CJI Gavai said.
He also stressed that the court must respond to the challenge of being approachable, understandable, and answerable without sacrificing its independence in this digital age where information is readily shared and perceptions are quickly formed.
The CJI emphasised the actions taken by the highest court to improve accessibility and transparency. It also stated that the voluntary disclosure of assets by Supreme Court judges has strengthened public trust through transparency, encouraging greater accountability and providing an ethical leadership example. “The Supreme Court has itself held that judges, as public functionaries, are accountable to the people. The court maintains a dedicated portal where judges’ declarations are made public, demonstrating that judges are willing to subject themselves to a degree of scrutiny, similar to other civil functionaries,” he said.
According to CJI Gavai, the Supreme Court of India also started live-streaming its Constitution-bench cases in an effort to increase public transparency. “However, as with any powerful tool, live streaming must be wielded with care, as fake news or out-of-context court proceedings can negatively shape public perception. Only last week, one of my colleagues in a lighter vein counselled a junior counsel on the art of court craft and soft skills. Instead, his statement was taken out of context and reported in the media as, ‘Our ego is very fragile; if you offend it, your case will go out’,” the CJI flagged.
CJI Gavai also defended the collegium method for selecting judges in the higher judiciary, pointing out that the executive had the last word in selecting judges for the Supreme Court and lower courts prior to 1993.
He said that the collegium system was intended to lessen administrative meddling and preserve the judiciary’s independence in its nominations. “During this period, the executive twice superseded the senior-most judges in appointing the CJI, which went against established tradition,” he said. He said, “There may be criticisms of collegium system, but any solution must not come at the cost of judicial independence. Judges must be free from external control.”
