A fierce debate has erupted among retired members of India’s judiciary following a public intervention related to the upcoming vice-presidential election. The episode began when a group of 18 former judges strongly objected to Home Minister Amit Shah’s criticism of Justice B. Sudershan Reddy, calling Shah’s remarks on the Salwa Judum verdict "unfortunate" and warning that such “prejudicial misinterpretation” by a political figure could undermine judicial independence.
However, this statement provoked a powerful counter-response. On Tuesday, a larger coalition of 56 retired judges, including former Chief Justices of India P. Sathasivam and Ranjan Gogoi, along with ex-Supreme Court judges A.K. Sikri and M.R. Shah, issued a sternly worded letter. They criticised their peers for "cloaking political partisanship under the language of judicial independence" and warned that such actions damage the judiciary's credibility.
The 50 former judges, including five of the Supreme Court, said, “These statements are determined to cloak their political partisanship under the language of judicial independence. This practice does a great disservice to the institution we once served, as it projects judges as political actors.” “Let those who have chosen the path of politics defend themselves in that realm,” they said in a statement, adding the institution of the judiciary must be kept above and distinct from such entanglements.
Key objections from the 56 ex-judges include:
- Eroding judiciary’s neutrality: They cautioned that portraying judges as political agents compromises the dignity, prosperity, and impartiality the judicial office demands.
- Prompting political accountability instead: The letter emphasised that Justice Reddy, as a political contender, must answer for his decisions in the realm of political debate, not shield them under judicial autonomy.
- Protecting institutional trust: The judges called on former colleagues to "desist from lending their names to politically motivated statements," stressing that it unfairly taints the entire judiciary and is not healthy for India’s democracy.
In defending their stance, the 18 judges—including former Supreme Court justices Kurien Joseph, Madan B. Lokur, and J. Chelameswar—had urged civility and restraint during the election period, underscoring the importance of interpretative accuracy regarding court decisions .
This episode highlights a critical fault line within India's judicial fraternity, raising broader questions about the boundaries between judicial independence and political engagement.
