By Dr. Kumar Rakesh
There are moments in Parliament where words don’t simply resound—where words leave a mark on history. One of those moments was when late Arun Jaitley, jurist, parliamentarian, rose up in the Rajya Sabha and sounded a low-key but stern warning. He wasn’t sounding like a politician then, but like a custodian of Bharat’s constitutional values. His warning? That the judiciary—intended to be the freest pillar of democracy—was gradually being affected by familial connections.
Jaitley employed the word “son’s stroke” — an expression to sum up how dynastic power was finding its way into the justice system. Then, much of it was discounted as political rhetoric. But today, years down the line, what he said strikes a prophetic note. The notion that judges are being chosen not only for their capability but for their lineage is a fear that is spreading.
He wasn’t targeting people—he was fighting a principle. Judges cannot be under political pressure or under family influence. When judgments are given on the basis of who someone is related to, and not on what they know or on how equitable they are, justice gets harmed.
Now Jaitley’s caution is needed more than ever. And Bharat has to hear it out—before it is too late.
When Accountability Ends at the Bench
In the Bharatiya republic, the public funds its servants—from ministers to magistrates. Yet, only one class of public official enjoys near-immunity from scrutiny: judges. Shielded by a constitutional provision that mandates removal only for “proved misbehavior or incapacity,” and only after a herculean process of impeachment, they remain untouchable. Not by merit, but by design.
It is telling that in over seven decades, only a handful of judges—Justice V. Ramaswami, Justice P.D. Dinakaran among them—have faced impeachment. And even they escaped consequences through the backdoor of resignation or political abstention. While lawmakers are hauled up by ethics panels and bureaucrats suspended for infractions, judges, ironically the custodians of accountability, remain exempt from it.
When the Robes Enter the Arena
There was once when the silence of a judge was strength—measured, dignified, and above the din of public debate. Now, that silence is being more and more filled with headlines and soundbites. The threatening trend of sitting judges venturing into political debates from public podiums challenges the very concept of judicial neutrality.
Recently, a sitting judge paraphrased a political quote from a podium that ought to be above politics. This was no retired jurist speaking off the record—it was an incumbent judge muddling the distinction between justice and politics. This kind of behavior is exceedingly worrisome. Justice in a democracy must not merely be unbiased—it must appear unbiased. When a judge sounds like a politician, the robe becomes tainted. The courtroom is not an election platform, and a judge is not a representative of any ideology.
This change, quiet but perilous, undermines public confidence in the judiciary. A faith-and-fairness system cannot tolerate the appearance of bias. Judges are not designed to influence public opinion; they’re designed to transcend it. If the judiciary starts to be a new site of political grandstanding, then who will be left to protect the Constitution? The robe must be beyond touch—not only in law, but in perception.
The Unseen, Unanswerable Collegium
In the world’s largest democracy, the third pillar of state functions in secrecy. Judicial appointments are governed not by elected representatives, but by the collegium system—an opaque, self-selecting council of senior judges. No reasons are given for promotions or rejections. No explanation accompanies transfers. No transparency accompanies recusals.
The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, a modest attempt at reform, remains in limbo. Meanwhile, Parliament and the executive—answerable to voters—must simply accept judicial choices on faith. Faith, however, is fragile when withheld from the people who fund and trust the courts.
A Court of One Language
In a nation whose strength lies in its linguistic diversity, Bharat’s highest courts speak only in English—a colonial relic that shuts out millions. Farmers, laborers, homemakers, small traders, and tribal citizens who approach the courts in search of justice often encounter not fairness, but foreignness.
The 21st Law Commission urged the use of regional languages in High Courts. Yet the suggestion remains trapped in institutional inertia. For how can one seek justice when the courtroom doesn’t speak their tongue?
A Trail of Resignations, Not Consequences
The history of judicial accountability in Bharat reads like a ledger of escape routes:
- Justice Ramaswami squandered court funds, yet survived impeachment due to political abstention.
- Justice Soumitra Sen resigned post Rajya Sabha’s removal vote, pre-empting Lok Sabha action.
- Justice Dinakaran bowed out before proceedings could commence, despite glaring allegations.
- Justice Nagarjuna and Justice Gangele also saw processes stall into oblivion.
In each case, resignation did not represent remorse—it was a shield against inquiry, a curtain dropped before the show of scrutiny could begin.
The World Has Moved On—Why Hasn’t Bharat?
Compare this to global standards. In Canada, resignation does not halt judicial inquiry. In the UK, removal requires a formal Act of Parliament. In the U.S., judges are impeached through a structured congressional process. These systems do not allow robes to evade responsibility by simply folding them.
Bharat, with its claim to a vibrant democracy, cannot afford to shield its judiciary from reform while democracies elsewhere evolve with the times.
Echoes of Jaitley: A Clarion Call Unheeded
Arun Jaitley’s speech was not a partisan jab—it was a statesman’s plea. Independence is sacred to a judge’s role, but independence without accountability is a danger cloaked in dignity. The judiciary, like every tax-funded institution, owes its strength to the trust of the people. But trust, once broken, is hard to rebuild.
Jaitley knew that power left unchecked becomes self-righteous, and institutions left unsupervised begin to forget who they serve.
Justice Must Speak in the People’s Voice
Our Constitution promised a judiciary that was independent, impartial, and accessible. But today, that promise stands strained. When judges comment on politics, function in secrecy, and resign to dodge consequences, the judiciary drifts from its moral compass.
This isn’t a call to weaken our courts—it’s a cry to strengthen them. True strength lies in being open to scrutiny. True justice does not fear oversight. It wears it as its finest robe.
If Bharat is to remain a republic where no one is above the Constitution, then the judiciary too must walk with the people—not above them, and certainly not beyond question.
Let judges continue to uphold the law—but let them be seen to do so with honesty, humility, and yes, accountability. Only then will Arun Jaitley’s warning find the reform it deserved. Only then will Bharat’s courts truly serve its people—not just in English, but in the language of trust.
About Author -:
Dr. Kumar Rakesh, Sr Journalist, Writer, Political Analyst, Broadcaster, Social Activist has been active in journalism and writing for approximately 38 years. He had been worked in several esteemed media organizations in Bharat and foreign countries and has been hold many top post with creating 9 TV news channels in the country. Through his long career, he has had the opportunity to travel to over 50 countries, reporting and writing on various topics with many media fellowships & reporting may foreign visits of Presidents, Vice Presidents & Prime Ministers of Bharat. Mr. Rakesh has received numerous accolades and honors both in Bharat and internationally for his contributions to the field of Journalism, Media & Communications.
Currently, he has been serving as the Editorial Chairman of Global Governance News Group & Samagra Bharat Media Group, New Delhi & 20 countries.
contact-:krakesh8@gmail.com
