Facts vs Ideology: India’s Judiciary Under the Scanner as Parliament and Supreme Court Face Off

Poonam Sharma
As India gears up for its monsoon session of Parliament, the country’s judiciary is at the intersection of an unparalleled debate that goes beyond challenging the moral ethos of judges and calls into question even the institutional integrity of the Supreme Court. In a political environment where facts and ideology converge with greater frequency, Parliament and the judiciary are engaged in a battle that can redefine the way justice is delivered in India.

This fight, being waged on two concurrent fronts—proceedings against impeachment in Parliament and a transparency struggle inside the judiciary—raises essential questions regarding how judges are appointed, how they can be ousted, and if ideology or integrity should be the criterion for their destiny.

The Parliament Front: Justice Verma and Justice Shekhar Yadav
The impeachment motion being debated in Parliament involves two serving judges, both embroiled in controversy—albeit for reasons that are very distinct.

Justice Verma is charged with grave charges of corruption, such as charges of unexplained assets and financial impropriety. Three eminent senior judges of the Supreme Court have already submitted the recommendation that he should resign based on the evidence. But Justice Verma has chosen to undergo the formal process of impeachment, refusing to abide by the constitutional process.

This has created a complex procedural process. To proceed with the impeachment, a simple majority (over 50%) in Parliament is needed, which is impossible without opposition cooperation. Political procrastination and procedural logjams have only poured oil into fire. Top Congress-aligned lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi has even challenged publicly why the process did not move, calling for the establishment of a compulsory three-member inquiry committee to authenticate the charges.

Across from that is the case of Allahabad High Court’s Justice Shekhar Yadav, who had ideological statements denouncing groups he called “puppets,” claiming that the nation needs to operate according to the Constitution, not personal ideologies. Such statements, albeit of a constitutional nature, also brought on a motion for his impeachment—this time not on charges of corruption, though, but of ideological utterance.

The motion has come to Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, who is under consideration. This has set a broader discussion: Is the impeachment of judges happening because they are speaking ideology instead of indulging in malpractice? And is ideology now being weaponized across the board—used both to protect some and to attack others?

Collegium vs Accountability: A War of Systems
At the heart of this institutional churn is the collegium system, which oversees judicial appointments in India. Criticisms against the collegium are not new, but they have picked up fresh steam with the present CJI D.Y. Chandrachud himself conceding the need for more transparency.

Some centralized powers of the collegium have long been:

Judicial appointments

Formation of benches (rosters)

Cooling-off periods before being elevated

Distribution of cases

Even shaping the manner in which some judgments are supposed to be deliberated

This central control, critics argue, produces judicial monopolies, enables internal bias, and could even be subject to external influence by political or business interests. A saying going around expresses the point well: “Business is being secured, but without real investment,” highlighting judgments potentially being susceptible under the cover of due process.

There are growing whispers of good benches being created for delicate political matters. Even ex-Vice Presidents have alluded to this, refraining from naming anyone, implying the system is prone to selective justice.

CJI Chandrachud’s Dilemma: Transparency vs Legacy
CJI Chandrachud, in his speeches in London, Delhi, and Mumbai, has vociferously advocated the collegium system. According to him, including the executive in the process of judicial appointments would result in dilution of independence, quoting the case of the infamous H.R. Khanna who had to resign after being suspended during the Emergency when he stood for non-conformity.

But his comments have unleashed a paradox. If transparency has gone up under his leadership, was the earlier regime under CJIs opaque? Is he indirectly faulting his predecessors for lack of transparency?

More controversy followed after he named Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Dutta, both of whom formed part of a bench that allowed bail to Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal. This stirred up charges of selective judicial behavior, especially because other suggested judges had not been subjected to proper background screening.

The Work Culture of the Supreme Court: A System Overburdened
More deeply than questions of ideology and procedure is the more fundamental issue of pending cases. The Supreme Court now has more than 80,000 cases pending, and estimates run higher than 65,000 for High Court pendency.

In spite of this, the Supreme Court works only for 190 days a year. The remaining 150 days are non-working days, with a 49-day summer vacation. Even though a small bench does work during vacation, the CJI and most seniour judges tend to be absent, attending international seminars or going for travel.

This work schedule has come under criticism. If backlog is so critical, why isn’t the court operating in shifts, working longer hours, or implementing a two-shift system in order to speed up hearings?

This is even more so when looking at cases like the Teesta Setalvad case. First, a two-judge bench was unable to agree on her bail application. CJI then constituted a three-judge bench at 9 PM, who ultimately granted her bail—despite the Gujarat High Court’s blistering verdict, listing how Setalvad had presumably:

Trained witnesses to give false evidence

Vilified India’s reputation overseas

Tried to involve then Gujarat CM Narendra Modi in concocted cases

The rejection by the Supreme Court of a 100+ page High Court judgment as being excessive merely added fuel to the notion that such high-profile cases are given favored treatment, contrary to the case of an ordinary citizen.

Towards Reform: Two Bills in the Pipeline
To address these concerns, two draft bills are under preparation as follows:

DCLA (Draft Court-Level Accountability Bill)

NJSC (National Judicial Selection Commission) Bill – perhaps a rebirth

Multiple ex-Chief Justices have been consulted by the Vice President, Law Minister, and even party members of the ruling party. The plan is to decrease secrecy, enhance accountability, and decrease case pendency without affecting judicial independence.

A System at the Crossroads
The Indian judiciary is currently being subjected to a test of foundations. It is not just about two judges or one system—it’s about the course India’s democratic institutions will plot.

Will ideology still drive judicial appointments and verdicts?
Will corrupt judges be protected under procedure delay while ideological judges are acted against in haste?
Will reforms treat symptoms, or will they cure structural inefficiencies?

As Parliament prepares for the monsoon session, these are the questions ringing through the legal and political corridors. A reformed, transparent, and effective judiciary is not only a constitutional imperative—it is the bedrock of India’s democratic future.