The Indian judiciary is one of the most powerful in the world .The Indian judiciary enjoys immense power as the final interpreter of the Constitution and the guardian of fundamental rights its role is vital to the functioning of democracy. However, in recent years, several developments have raised deep concerns about the credibility, transparency, and independence of this vital pillar of democracy. Among the most prominent are issues of judicial nepotism, post-retirement appointments, and cultural remnants of colonial rule have stirred debate across civil society, political circles, and the legal fraternity itself with serious implications for public trust.

Colonial Hierarchies in a Democratic Courtroom?

Despite India's status as a sovereign republic, many courtrooms still resonate with colonial-era expressions such as "My Lord" and "Your Honour" — phrases originally used to establish the superiority of British judges over Indian citizens. While some continue to see these as formal and respectful, they fundamentally clash with the democratic and egalitarian ethos of the Constitution.

Right to equality is central to the Rule of Law, and Article 17 of the Constitution explicitly abolishes the practice of untouchability. It makes untouchability not only unconstitutional but also a punishable offence. Yet, the continued use of such feudal terminology in judicial spaces subtly upholds hierarchical mindsets rather than challenging them.

If every citizen is equal before the law, why should the system still echo the language of kings and colonizers?

Judicial Nepotism: The Old Family Game

Many judges in India’s higher judiciary come from influential legal families. This has resulted in a noticeable pattern—judges appointing judges who are relatives of other judges or top lawyers. The collegium system, where senior judges appoint new judges behind closed doors, lacks transparency. This secrecy often fuels speculation about favoritism, bias, and a lack of opportunity for meritorious first-generation lawyers.

The question is not merely one of background or legacy, but of access. Does the judiciary truly represent the diversity of the country, or has it become an exclusive circle for the privileged few?

Parliament's (voice of people) Attempt at Reform: NJAC Struck Down 

In 2014, in an unprecedented move, the Indian Parliament passed the 99th Constitutional Amendment, introducing the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) to replace the opaque collegium system. The NJAC was envisioned to create a more transparent, multi-stakeholder process for appointing judges, involving both judicial and non-judicial members.

However, in a controversial 2015 judgment, the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC as unconstitutional, stating it undermined the independence of the judiciary. Many criticized this as a resistance to democratic reform, especially since the NJAC had overwhelming support in Parliament—a body that represents the will of the people.

Judiciary’s Self-Employment Scheme?

A few weeks prior to BJP leaders criticizing the judiciary’s proximity to post-retirement benefits, the Supreme Court had passed another controversial judgment. It ruled that only sitting or retired judges (or lawyers with 20 years' experience) could head the country’s Information Commissions, and mandated that every RTI application be decided by a two-member bench including at least one judge or senior advocate.

Critics called this a move to reserve plum government jobs for judges, especially since Information Commissions hold access to sensitive government documents. It was seen as an attempt by the judiciary to extend its influence beyond retirement, under the guise of institutional expertise.

This decision was criticized as an attempt to reserve lucrative government jobs for retired judges—prompting some to call it an employment guarantee scheme for the judiciary.

Arun Jaitley's Bold Statement on Judicial Independence

On 5th September 2013, senior BJP leader and former Union Minister Arun Jaitley spoke in the Rajya Sabha:

“Barring a few exceptions, almost every judge wants a job after retirement. If we (Parliament) don’t arrange it, they’ll do it themselves. The desire to hold a post-retirement position influences pre-retirement decisions. This is a threat to the independence of the judiciary.”

This quote cuts to the heart of the matter—can a judge remain fully impartial when there’s an unspoken understanding that favorable decisions may result in post-retirement rewards?

The Pattern of Post-Retirement Appointments that Cannot Be Ignored

The appointments appear to form a disturbing trend. And this isn't new. A few notable historical examples include:

• Justice S. Fazal Ali: Appointed Governor of Odisha less than a year after retirement.
• Justice Fathima Beevi: Became Governor of Tamil Nadu five years after retiring.
• Justice P. Sathasivam: Appointed Governor of Kerala mere months after his tenure as CJI.
• Justice Ranganath Mishra: Made Chairman of the NHRC, then sent to Rajya Sabha—all amidst criticism over his inquiry into the 1984 anti-Sikh riots.

Recent appointments have intensified these concerns.

• Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, who was part of the benches that decided both the Demonetisation case and the Ram Janmabhoomi-Ayodhya verdict, was appointed Governor of Andhra Pradesh just after retirement.
• Of the five judges who delivered the Ayodhya verdict, three (including Justice Nazeer) have received post-retirement positions.
• Former CJI Ranjan Gogoi was nominated to the Rajya Sabha four months after retiring.
• Justice Ashok Bhushan is now Chairman of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).

Such appointments, even if lawful, raise ethical and moral questions about timing, neutrality, and integrity.

Governments of All Colors Have Followed This Practice

This is not an issue tied to a single political party. During the UPA I and II governments, 14 retired judges were appointed to government posts. During Modi government’s first term, this number was about 12. While these appointments may be legal, the question remains: Should a judge's neutrality be compromised by future aspirations?

There is no law mandating a waiting period for judges before taking up government posts. Justice A.P. Shah, former Chairman of the Law Commission, recommended a three-year cooling-off period, but in 2019, the government declared in Parliament that it had no plans to enact such a law.

No Waiting Period, No Law – Just Goodwill?

There is no law that restricts how soon a judge can accept a government post after retirement. Justice A.P. Shah, former chairman of the Law Commission, recommended a three-year cooling-off period. But in 2019, the central government clarified in Parliament that it had no intention to bring such a law.

Thus, the door remains open, and judges—often fresh from delivering landmark verdicts—walk into prestigious post-retirement offices within weeks or months.

A Crossroad for Judicial Accountability

These issues—nepotism, post-retirement placements, and resistance to reform—have pushed the judiciary into a credibility crisis. When judges are seen as serving interests beyond the Constitution, public confidence in the justice system suffers.

It’s high time that judicial independence is protected not only from the executive but also from within. Reforms must strike a balance between autonomy and accountability, dignity and discipline, and freedom and fairness.

The Way Forward: Real Reforms, Real Transparency

If India is to preserve the sanctity of its judiciary, it must:

• Revisit NJAC with safeguards: A balanced, democratic method of judicial appointments is essential.
• Implement a cooling-off period: Judges should be restricted from accepting government posts for a minimum of 2–3 years post-retirement.
• Make collegium proceedings transparent: Publish criteria and reasons for appointments and rejections.
• Broaden access for first-generation lawyers: Establish systems that value merit over connections.
• Strengthen judicial ethics code: Especially around post-retirement roles and family ties in practice.
• Discourage the use of colonial-era court addresses, aligning judicial culture with the spirit of the Constitution.

Few Word: Justice Must Be Seen to Be Done

The judiciary must remain above suspicion. If it fails to maintain not just independence, but also the appearance of independence, it risks losing its moral authority. After all, in a democracy, justice is not just a principle—it is a promise.

A Final Question

In a democratic republic where the people are sovereign, should justice remain a guarded domain of privilege, secrecy, and legacy—or should it evolve into a transparent and accountable institution that truly reflects the values enshrined in the Constitution?