Do you have faith in the Contemporary Indian Judiciary?

Posted on 02/09/2022

Dedicated To  

Late Justice Brijgopal Harkishan Loya (1966-2014)

“Loya’s family, who questioned the circumstances surrounding his death and said that the judge had been offered Rs 100 crore  to give an order favourable to the prime accused, BJP president Amit Shah. The judge passed away on December 1, 2014 after a heart attack while in Nagpur to attend a colleague’s daughter’s wedding. In interviews to the magazine’s reporter, Niranjan Takle, members of Loya’s family listed what they said were inconsistencies in the facts surrounding his death.”  VIEW HERE (As reported on 27th November, 2017, Republished on the 12th of January, 2018 ©The Wire)

Death of Judge Loya: Video Testimonies from Family, Which Raise Disturbing Questions Regarding His Death VIEW HERE (As reported on 21st November 2017 ©The Caravan)

“If juries are appropriated and codified by the ruling class, justice is far from the noble victims, suffering from chill penury.”


It is observed that discriminatory practices exist in between the haves and have-nots in the Indian judiciary (nepotism, patron-client relationship, political manipulation etc.). Poor people do not have access to the apex court for justice.

Here’s proof that poor get gallows, rich mostly escape. VIEW HERE (As reported on JULY 21, 2015 © The Times on India) 

Judiciary ramshackled, going to court is useless: Ex-CJI Ranjan Gogoi  VIEW HERE (As reported on 14th February,  2021) © The Indian Express

“Who goes to the court? You go to the court and regret,” Gogoi said, adding that it is those who can afford to take chances, such as the big corporate, who approach the courts. “If you go to the court, you would be washing dirty linen in the court. You will not get a verdict…”

“You want a 5 trillion dollar economy but you have a ramshackled judiciary,” he commented, adding that during the pandemic, 60 lakh cases were added at the trial courts, 3 lakh in high courts and nearly 7,000 in the apex court.

“The road map is to have the right man for the job. You don’t appoint judges as you appoint officers in the government. To be a judge is a full time commitment. It is a passion. There are no working hours,” he said, stressing that the training of judges should be robust.

See also:

‘If you go to court, you don’t get a verdict,’ says former CJI Ranjan Gogoi VIEW HERE (As reported on Feb 13, 2021) © (It is to be noted  that Shri  Ranjan Gogoi delivered the verdict on the Ram Janmabhoomi case of Ayodhya. However, quite interestingly, India’s new CJI U. U. Lalit recused from the Ayodhya case (See Instance 1 of the Section-II below for more details)!)

Mukul Rohatgi, Ex-Attorney General of India, said in the NDTV interview (12/11/2020) by reiterating Hon. Justice Krishna Iyer, “Jurisprudence has gone astray, seem jail is rule, bail exception.”  (It is also to be noted that Mukul Rohatgi was one of the legal advisors of the CoC appointed by the Reserve Bank of India for the DHFL Case in the IBC.)

In the context of the crony and monopoly capitalist scenario, the third pillar of democracy, i.e., the Judiciary, has clearly collapsed. To whom the deprived, exploited citizens of India appeal to buy ‘justice’, a commodity? Can you afford it? Can an Indian citizen get justice by avoiding jurisprudence’s obligation to ruling party’s volition?


Let us present two instances of nexus between the political leaders and appointed judges of the apex court:


Justice Uday U Lalit is the current Chief Justice of India. Let us go through the following links to enquire into his history of advocacy:

1. Amit Shah was his client twice in the extra-judicial killings of Sohrabuddin Sheikh and Tulsiram Prajapati, though certain Godi media denied any such activity of Justice Lalit; there is no way to cross-check or verify the authenticity of these contradictory reports;

2. U. U. Lalit had advocated for Gen V. K. Singh in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 26 of 2012 in Apex Court regarding the year of birth;

3. He represented the government by opposing Dr. Binayak Sen, tried under the Sedition Act, and his bail plea;

4. He also represented the actor Salman Khan in the blackbuck poaching case;

5. Justice Lalit was a prosecutor in the 2G Spectrum case;

6. He has defended Congress leader Navjot Singh Sidhu in a homicide case;

7. He has advocated for ex-CM of Tamil Nadu Late Jayalalithaa.

Why the criticism of UU Lalit’s appointment as India’s next chief justice is  flawed  VIEW HERE  (As reported on Aug 10, 2022 ©

Here comes the crucial ethical question. In the capitalist world, a ‘profession’ is usually treated as an amoral activity. One can simply buy justice by hiring an advocate and the relationship between patron and client does not affect the moral character of the legal aid provider. Thus, there are fragmented identities of the moral self and the professional self. The fraternity of Indian judges think that one should not judge or evaluate a legal advisor by his/her professional deeds! The communist leader Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, for example, fought a case at the Calcutta High Court for the BJP’s Mukul Roy⤡. Paradoxical? Hypocritical? Can we not synchronize our moral selves with our professional pursuit? Is it not a schizophrenia stemming from the capitalist crisis?

A Look at Justice U.U. Lalit’s Career, India’s Next Chief Justice VIEW HERE (As reported on 11/AUG/2022 ©The Wire)

From 2G Prosecutor and Lawyer for Amit Shah, Sidhu to Next CJI, a Guide to Justice UU Lalit’s Career VIEW HERE (As reported on 17th August, 2022©The Wire)

कौन हैं Justice UU Lalit, जो वकील के तौर पर Amit Shah और Salman Khan का केस लड़ चुके हैं VIEW HERE (As reported on 10th January, 2019 ©The Lallantop)


Ex-judge and Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra, is also on the same page as our current CJI. View the links below:

Amit Shah’s ‘untiring efforts’ for peace in J&K, Northeast ‘have ushered in a new age’: NHRC chief VIEW HERE (As reported on 12th October, 2021 ©Indian Express)

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) published some highly pertinent and factual reports⤡ on the rampant human rights’ violation cases in the state of J&K. The Indian government reacted in the following manner:

Kashmir: India Hits Out At UN Human Rights Body Over ‘Baseless’ Report VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on 2nd December, 2021 ©Outlook)

The NHRC Chairman, however, has still defended alleged murderer Amit Shah’s so-called “new Kashmir era”:

NHRC chairman credits Home Minister Amit Shah for ‘new era in Jammu and Kashmir’ VIEW HERE (As reported on 13th October, 2021 ©Indian Express)

It is very difficult to understand the motive behind such lauding for a minister by an ex-judge. Therefore, Rights activists object to choice of NHRC chief A.K. Mishra VIEW HERE (As reported on 2nd June, 2021 ©The Hindu). Thus, the ruling party’s shadow governance de facto influences the decision-making process of the so-called de jure “impartial”, “independent” Indian Judiciary!


In this scenario, when convicted rapists roam around scot-free and are applauded by the ruling party’s associates, it becomes very difficult for the common people of India to ‘buy’ the justice-commodity in an unbiased manner. Whom should the common mass appeal to?

Walking in the footsteps of our briefless barrister, viz., Mahatma Gandhi, one can ponder over the following reflections of Bapu on the question of the efficacy of the legal profession:

“I have no desire to convince you that they (lawyers) have never done a single good thing…That the Congress owes the lawyers something is believable. Lawyers are also men, and there is something good in every man. Whenever instances of lawyers having done good can be brought forward, it will be found that the good is due to them as men rather than as lawyers. All I am concerned with is to show you that the profession teaches immorality; it is exposed to temptation from which few are saved.

The Hindus and the Mahomedans have quarreled. An ordinary man will ask them to forget all about it; he will tell them that both must be more or less at fault, and will advise them no longer to quarrel. But they go to lawyers. The latter’s duty is to side with their clients and to find out ways and arguments in favour of the clients to which they (the clients) are often strangers. If they do not do so they will be considered to have degraded their profession. The lawyers, therefore, will, as a rule, advance quarrels instead of repressing them. Moreover, men take up that profession, not in order to help others out of their miseries, but to enrich themselves. It is one of the avenues of becoming wealthy and their interest exists in multiplying disputes. It is within my knowledge that they are glad when men have disputes. Petty pleaders actually manufacture them. Their touts, like so many leeches, suck the blood of the poor people. Lawyers are men who have little to do. Lazy people, in order to indulge in luxuries, take up such professions. This is a true statement. Any other argument is a mere pretension. It is the lawyers who have discovered that theirs is an honourable profession. They frame laws as they frame their own praises. They decide what fees they will charge and they put on so much side that poor people almost consider them to be heaven-born. Why do they want more fees than common labourers? Why are their requirements greater? In what way are they more profitable to the country than the labourers? Are those who do good entitled to greater payment? And, if they have done anything for the country for the sake of money, how shall it be counted as good? ….Those who want to perpetuate their power do so through the courts. If people were to settle their own quarrels, a third party would not be able to exercise any authority over them. Truly, men were less unmanly when they settled their disputes either by fighting or by asking their relatives to decide for them. They became more unmanly and cowardly when they resorted to the courts of law. It was certainly a sign of savagery when they settled their disputes by fighting. Is it any the less so, if I ask a third party to decide between you and me? Surely, the decision of a third party is not always right. The parties alone know who is right. We, in our simplicity and ignorance, imagine that a stranger, by taking our money, gives us justice.”

Hind Swaraj (1915)

We do not wish to add anything more after such a radical enunciation. For taking a relief, we may look into a movie’s (Lage Raho Munna Bhai) clipping for elaborating the above enunciation of Mahatma Gandhi:

In conclusion: one has to take recourse to non-violent civil disobedience methods as part of one’s social movement strategies. Without such means, the people of India won’t see the face of justice ever in the context of the plutocratic governmentality. The recent resistance offered by the protesting groups against the draconian anti-people laws such as the CAA-NRC-NPR-DPB or the Farmers’ bills exemplify the collective moral strength of certain portions of the Indian mass. One must take lessons from these movements along with the international digital social movements such as the Occupy Wall Street Movement, the Arab Spring Uprisings, Stop Adani Movement in Australia, the Egyptian Digital Movement⤡ and so on. In India, we are lacking tech-savvy citizens to initiate a web-based, coordinated movement against autocracy.

Thanks Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt (IPS) for encouraging us to tell the truth!

“In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act…” 


Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s