akrishnarao

Tag: Chief Justice Suryakant

  • The Cockroach Crisis: Is India’s Judiciary Losing Public Trust?

    “If the judiciary loses its credibility, nothing else will remain. An independent judiciary is the lifeblood of the Constitution. Without it, judges will exist, courts will exist, and judgments will exist—but their heart and soul will disappear,” said Supreme Court Judge Ujjal Bhuyan in a recent memorial lecture in Pune.

    He referred to a stark reality: the collegium itself recorded in its minutes that a High Court judge was being transferred in accordance with the wishes of the Central Government. This serves as a clear example of how a judiciary constitutionally expected to function independently can find itself working under government pressure.

    “The judiciary must remain distant from party politics and function firmly. Changes in government should have absolutely no connection with the judiciary. It should act with goodwill and sympathy towards everyone, but should not side with anyone,” said the first Chief Justice of India, H. J. Kania, at the inaugural sitting of the Supreme Court. Yet, reviewing the situation more than 75 years after the Constitution came into force, deep doubts arise as to whether standards in the higher judiciary have improved or deteriorated.

    The Historical Shield and the Ultimate Downfall

    For nearly twenty-five years after the Constitution came into force, the judiciary largely fulfilled its responsibility of preserving its own existence, protecting the fundamental rights of citizens, and defining the limits of government authority. The Supreme Court progressively interpreted Articles 14, 15, 19, and 31. In the 1967 Golaknath case, it clarified that fundamental rights could not be diluted, and in the landmark 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case, it solidified that Parliament had no authority to alter the basic structure of the Constitution.

    However, after coming to power with an overwhelming majority in 1971, Indira Gandhi’s administration began to toy with judicial independence. The absolute peak of the judiciary’s downfall in capitulating to executive overreach was the infamous ADM Jabalpur case during the Emergency.

    When thousands of political opponents and journalists were jailed without trial, and citizens sought the intervention of the courts to protect their fundamental liberties, a five-judge Constitution Bench delivered one of the most disgraceful judgments in Indian history. By a 4:1 majority, the bench ruled that during an Emergency, citizens do not even possess the right to life under Article 21.

    The majority consisted of Chief Justice A. N. Ray, Justice P. N. Bhagwati, Justice M. H. Beg, and Justice Y. V. Chandrachud (father of former Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud). When Justice H. R. Khanna—the sole courageous dissenter—asked during the hearings, “Does that mean people cannot question even if they are shot dead in the name of Emergency?”, the then-Attorney General chillingly replied, “My Lord, that is what the law says.”

    A Era of Introspection and Activism

    Following the Emergency—one of the darkest chapters in judicial history—the Supreme Court undertook deep introspection and initiated significant corrective measures. Moving past its catastrophic failure, the court aggressively declared that the Constitution, not the executive, was supreme.

    It opened its doors to the masses through Public Interest Litigations (PILs), ordered the release of thousands of undertrial prisoners languishing in jails, liberated bonded laborers, and eventually introduced the collegium system to insulate judicial appointments from political interference.

    Most importantly, it expanded the scope of personal liberties, protected the environment, championed the interests of working women, and curbed the arbitrary dismissal of state governments by ruling that political majorities must be proven on the floor of the legislature. At that stage, judicial activism was a remarkable shield for the vulnerable.

    Modern Shadows and Internal Fractures

    If the Supreme Court denied protection to human life twenty-five years after Independence, today, five decades after that judgment, the core functioning of the institution faces renewed skepticism. We may not be living in a formal Emergency, but public faith in the judiciary is noticeably shrinking.

    The fact that sitting judges themselves feel compelled to speak out demands serious reflection:

    • Justice Ujjal Bhuyan publicly emphasized that no external forces should be allowed to intrude upon judicial independence, asserting that personal political or ideological views must not influence decisions on the bench.
    • Justice B. V. Nagarathna warned that judges must not succumb to external pressures, noting that those who cannot live contentedly on their legitimate income should be eliminated from the system entirely. “A tainted judge is a stain on the entire system,” she remarked.
    • Justice S. Muralidhar, former Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court, once noted: “Impartiality is the soul of the judiciary, and independence is the blood flowing through its veins.” Notably, during his tenure at the Delhi High Court, he was transferred overnight after questioning police inaction during civil unrest in the capital.

    In her book Constitution Is My Home, senior advocate Indira Jaising recalled a harrowing 2022 case involving sexual harassment allegations made by a female Additional District Judge against a Madhya Pradesh High Court judge. Not only did the victim fail to find immediate recourse, but she was also swiftly transferred and forced to resign.

    Through Jaising’s persistent legal battles, a Supreme Court bench headed by Justice L. Nageswara Rao eventually restored her position and questioned why the then-Chief Justice of the High Court had refused to even grant her an interview. Disturbingly, just days later, that very Chief Justice was elevated to the Supreme Court.

    Growing Questions and the “Cockroach” Backlash

    Why has it become necessary for judges to comment so defensively on their own institution? Critics increasingly argue that the higher judiciary—originally designed to protect the common citizen—is becoming overwhelmingly responsive to the wealthy, the state, and political elites.

    Calculated bench allocations and predictable judgments in politically sensitive cases have sparked intense debate. Former Supreme Court Bar Association President Dushyant Dave openly criticized the court for failing to check the erosion of vital institutions like the Election Commission, pointing out that judges routinely scramble for lucrative post-retirement positions.

    Simultaneously, ethical questions have mounted. Organizations like the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) heavily criticized several judges and their families for utilizing private aircraft provided by state governments, arguing it severely compromises judicial ethics. Furthermore, instances like the discovery of massive cash bundles at the residence of a former Delhi High Court judge—followed by an apparent lack of accountability—have deepened public cynicism.

    Perhaps because the public, especially the younger demographic, is closely watching these lapses, an explosive reaction occurred following recent remarks made by Supreme Court Judge Surya Kant.

    During a judicial hearing, Justice Surya Kant criticized unemployed youth, comparing them to “cockroaches” who populate social media, media outlets, and RTI activism to attack institutions. Though he later clarified that the comment was contextualized within a specific petition regarding a lawyer’s designation and was not aimed at the youth at large, the damage was done.

    Justice Surya Kant has faced widening backlash for a series of oral remarks. On May 11, 2026, during a hearing on the Pipavav Port expansion project in Gujarat, his comments drew sharp rebukes from environmentalists and legal experts. Former civil servants under the Constitutional Conduct Group warned that these remarks showed a disturbing pro-corporate bias from the bench, creating an atmosphere of fear that silences dissent. Over 70 lawyers noted that treating citizens who enforce environmental laws as “obstructionists” marks a dangerous jurisprudential shift.

    Similarly, on January 29, 2026, during a PIL hearing on domestic workers’ rights, Justice Surya Kant blamed trade unions for stifling industrial growth and shutting down traditional industries. Labor bodies, including the AITUC, strongly condemned the court for misreading economic realities, arguing that industrial stagnation is driven by corporate monopoly and pro-corporate state policies, not by workers asserting their legal rights.

    The Danger of Erased Boundaries

    Following the “cockroach” commentary, a young citizen created a social media movement under the banner of the “Cockroach Janata Party.” Millions responded. Instead of merely deflecting the insult, the youth weaponized it, using the platform to furiously criticize the government over unemployment, inflation, corruption, and systemic scams, proclaiming: “Yes, we are cockroaches.”

    This reaction highlights a profound systemic crisis. The derogatory comments were made by a member of the judiciary, yet the public directed its anger squarely at the executive government.

    This reveals a terrifying reality: the public no longer views the government and the judiciary as separate entities.

    In a constitutional democracy, nothing is more dangerous than the total erasure of the boundary between the ruling executive and the independent judiciary. The judiciary must aggressively reform and rescue itself from this crisis. If it fails, the day may soon arrive when the “cockroaches” themselves feel forced to become the arbiters of justice.

  • If the Judiciary Is Bleeding, Who Fired the First Shot?

    Screenshot

    There are systematic attempts underway to undermine the institutional authority of the Supreme Court and to damage the reputation of the judiciary. If these attempts are not stopped, the sanctity of the judiciary in the eyes of the people will erode. It will influence the tender minds of the youth. “Shots have been fired at us… the judiciary is bleeding,” expressed Justice Suryakant of the Supreme Court of India in anguish. For describing corruption in the judiciary in an 8th-grade textbook published by the National Council of Educational Research and Training, he went so far as to announce a ban on that very book. He ordered that the book should not be available even in digital form. Following these prohibitory orders, NCERT withdrew several lakh copies of the textbook. It was also reported that a bookstore owner was arrested by the police for selling photocopies of the textbook. “I will not tolerate anyone on this earth attempting to defame the judiciary,” said the Chief Justice.

    When he expressed his anger over the textbook, Prime Minister Narendra Modi was in Israel. Official sources told the media that Modi too was distressed that the judiciary’s sentiments had been hurt and remarked, “Who is overseeing all this?” After returning to the country, Modi reportedly raised the issue in a Cabinet meeting as well. News reports said he remarked, “How can we tell 8th-grade children ourselves that there is corruption in our judiciary?” Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan also expressed regret over including the controversial chapter on corruption in the judiciary in the 8th-grade textbook. “We have immense respect for the judiciary. We did not intend to insult it deliberately,” he said. The Supreme Court sent notices to NCERT Chairman Professor Dinesh Prasad Saklani.

    With the Chief Justice expressing concern, is there really a conspiracy behind this entire episode to defame the judiciary? Are there systematic efforts underway to reduce public respect for the judiciary? In fact, the Congress attempted to create the impression that it was the Modi government itself that engineered this conspiracy. “For a decade, the BJP government has been trying to spread its ideological virus through textbooks. The inclusion of details about corruption in the judiciary was not accidental. It was a systematic attempt to corrupt the minds of students,” said Congress spokesperson Jairam Ramesh. He made indirect remarks suggesting there was evidence that Modi himself guided this process and that the RSS was behind it. Lawyers Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Singhvi, who argue opposition cases in the Supreme Court, made submissions that led Justice Suryakant to treat the matter more seriously. They succeeded in creating the impression that a major conspiracy had taken place.

    It is because people believe that they will ultimately receive justice through the judiciary that lakhs of them approach the courts. If they did not believe courts would deliver justice, there is a possibility that they might resort to vigilante justice instead of going to court. It cannot be said that Justice Suryakant’s view — “We cannot allow students to develop the impression that justice is not available in this country” — is entirely wrong. The textbook mentioned a judgment that described slum dwellers as encroachers. However, by highlighting such instances, it would be inappropriate to portray the entire judiciary as anti-poor.

    Quoting Martin Luther King Jr.’s words, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” CBI Special Judge Justice Jitendra Singh, in his recent judgment on the Delhi liquor case, detailed across nearly 600 pages how the CBI allegedly tailored facts to suit its narrative in order to implicate political opponents of the ruling party. He asked, “If even policy decisions taken to strengthen the economy are treated as crimes, how can any government take decisions?” He pointed out the injustice of keeping accused persons imprisoned for months based solely on the statements of approvers and accomplice witnesses. He observed that the right to life and personal liberty did not come from the government’s grace but from the Constitution, and that unless a balance is maintained between the Constitution and statutory law, public trust in the criminal justice system would erode. It is noteworthy that even constitutional benches which had refused stays in several instances in the Delhi liquor cases did not reflect at such depth as the lower court did. Regardless of how much this judgment is challenged in higher courts, the significance of the questions it raises will not diminish.

    By banning a textbook that mentioned corruption in the judiciary, students may lose the opportunity to learn in the classroom about what is happening within the judicial system. The very act of banning it has created greater discussion and drawn more attention to the issue. Do students learn about the world only through textbooks? Just because something is not mentioned in a textbook, will they automatically form a favorable opinion of the judiciary? It is no secret that today social media has far greater influence than any textbook. Do 8th-grade students not watch television or read newspapers? Moreover, as mentioned in the textbook, the government itself has repeatedly informed Parliament that crores of cases are pending across the Supreme Court, High Courts, district and subordinate courts. The textbook also cited remarks made in 2025 by then Chief Justice Justice Gavai that corruption and misconduct in the judiciary erode public trust. Therefore, merely banning the textbook will not increase public respect for the judiciary. It is impossible to conceal such matters from students simply by excluding them from textbooks.

    Secondly, it has become a matter of debate whether the Supreme Court has the constitutional authority to ban a book or a speech. In a democratic society, censoring a book falls under curtailing freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 19. Legal experts are raising questions about whether judicial orders fall within the permissible restrictions under Article 19 and whether the Constitution grants such authority to the judiciary. When their fundamental rights are violated, citizens can approach the courts. But when courts themselves infringe upon fundamental rights, what is to be done? they ask.

    After the strict stance taken by the Supreme Court, NCERT has fallen in line—and so has the government. Everyone is offering clarifications and apologies. NCERT apologized in court and assured that the books would be withdrawn, but the court is not satisfied with that. The Chief Justice has put a stay on the book. But is this really an issue related to corruption in the judiciary, or is there some other story behind it?

    In reality, the chapter titled ‘Corruption in Judiciary’ included in NCERT’s Class 8 book was not an attempt to inform students about corruption existing at any level within the judiciary. It appears to be an effort to raise questions about the credibility of the judiciary and influence public perception. It should be noted that NCERT books are not prepared randomly, as if someone wrote something arbitrarily and it got printed. There is a long process behind it. Every subject has two committees that oversee the entire process—from preparing the content to its publication.

    This chapter appears in the Class 8 Social Science book. It is perhaps just a coincidence that the head of the Curricular Area Group that prepared the Social Science book is a guest professor at IIT Gandhinagar, Michel Danino. This committee oversees the selection and writing of content for social science textbooks. After this comes the National Syllabus and Teaching Learning Materials Committee, a high-level committee that gave the book its final shape. The chairman of this committee is MC Pant, Chancellor of the National School of Planning and Administration. Professor Manjul Bhargava of Princeton University is its co-chair. Apart from them, there are 19 members including Sudha Murty and Sanjeev Sanyal, a member of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council. Think about it—if all these people have truly fulfilled their responsibilities, it would mean that the book’s content passed through all their scrutiny and none of them found anything objectionable in it. It is worth noting that around the same time, remarks previously made by Sanjeev Sanyal that “the judiciary is the main obstacle to rapid development in this country,” were also brought up.

    So the question is whether a committee that prepares textbook content in line with the prevailing social and political narrative in the country would inadvertently decide to teach eighth-grade students about alleged corruption in the judiciary. It is hard to believe that this happened accidentally.

    Then the question arises: why did the government not defend it in court? If so many people collectively played a role in preparing the book, then either action should be taken against all of them, or the government should defend the book in court. If one closely observes the narrative that has emerged on social media regarding this entire episode, it seems that the objective behind including this chapter in the book has already been achieved. A discussion on corruption in the judiciary has begun, and a debate has also erupted over the Supreme Court’s move to stop this discussion. There is a large group arguing that corruption exists in the judiciary and that it should be investigated and openly discussed. The same group is also saying that the judiciary becomes immediately sensitive about matters concerning itself and does not want its issues to come before the public.

    Senior Supreme Court lawyer and public interest litigator Prashant Bhushan has also objected to certain remarks made by the Supreme Court and some senior lawyers. He wrote on social media that in 2007, Transparency International had said that in public perception, the judiciary was the second most corrupt institution. He wrote that if discussion on this issue is suppressed, it will only strengthen public perception. Later, former NCERT Director JS Rajput also questioned the Supreme Court’s stance and said that stopping discussion on corruption in the judiciary is not appropriate.

    Why should the court react only when corruption in the judiciary is mentioned? Why remain silent when other institutions are criticized? This entire episode has also brought the case of Yashwant Varma back into discussion. Burnt currency notes were reportedly recovered from his residence when he was a judge of the Delhi High Court. The incident took place around Holi last year, and now another Holi has arrived. Nothing has happened in one year. There is an impeachment motion in Parliament that is to be investigated. People are asking what happened after sacks of cash were allegedly recovered from a judge’s residence. If action had been taken and an example set, it would have positively influenced public perception. But no action has been taken on such a major issue of corruption.

    There are those who argue that there is nothing wrong with textbooks discussing the ailments present in the country and that only by discussing them can they be resolved. For example, irregularities in the electoral system have also been discussed in textbooks, including an image of currency notes found in a candidate’s car. Do such incidents not occur? Over time, several allegations have been made against High Court and Supreme Court judges. There are no records of any judge being convicted or impeached over corruption allegations; at most, transfers have taken place. While ordinary citizens and political leaders face CBI raids and ED investigations, why does the same not happen to judges? The very higher judiciary that banned the 8th-grade textbook must answer these questions.