Speaking at a roundtable conference in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom on “Maintaining Judicial Legitimacy and Public Confidence”, he also spoke about post-retirement jobs taken by judges, and said if a judge takes up another appointment with the government immediately after retirement, or resigns from the bench to contest elections, it raises “significant ethical concerns and invites public scrutiny”.
On the issue of corruption, the CJI said whenever these instances of corruption and misconduct have come to light, the Supreme Court has consistently taken immediate and appropriate measures to address the misconduct.
“Furthermore, every system, no matter how robust, is susceptible to issues of professional misconduct. Sadly, there have been instances of corruption and misconduct that have surfaced even within the judiciary. Such occurrences inevitably have a negative impact on public confidence, potentially eroding faith in the integrity of the system as a whole.
“However, the path to rebuilding this trust lies in the swift, decisive, and transparent action taken to address and resolve these issues. In India, when such instances have come to light, the Supreme Court has consistently taken immediate and appropriate measures to address the misconduct,” the CJI said.
The CJI’s remarks come in the backdrop of Allahabad High Court’s Justice Yashwant Varma facing allegations of corruption after the discovery of a large amount of cash from his official residence in Delhi.CJI Gavai said in every democracy, the judiciary must not only dispense justice, but also be seen as an institution that deserves to hold truth to power and the terms “judicial legitimacy” and “public confidence” are interconnected.”Legitimacy and public confidence are not secured through coercion of command but through the credibility earned by courts. Any erosion of this confidence risks weakening the judiciary’s constitutional role as the ultimate arbiter of rights. Transparency and accountability are democratic virtues,” CJI Gavai said.
Dealing with the often debated issue of post-retirement jobs taken by judges, he said the timing and nature of such post-retirement engagements could undermine the public’s trust in the judiciary’s integrity, as it could create a perception that judicial decisions were influenced by the prospect of future government appointments or political involvement.
“Another point of discussion is post-retirement jobs taken by judges. In India, judges are subject to a fixed retirement age. If a judge takes up another appointment with the government immediately after retirement, or resigns from the bench to contest elections, it raises significant ethical concerns and invites public scrutiny,” he said.
The CJI pointed out that a judge contesting an election for a political office can lead to doubts regarding the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, as it may be seen as a conflict of interest or as an attempt to gain favour with the government.
“In light of this, many of my colleagues and I have publicly pledged not to accept any post-retirement roles or positions from the government. This commitment is an effort to preserve the credibility and independence of the judiciary,” CJI Gavai said.
He further emphasised that in this digital era, where information flows freely and perceptions are rapidly shaped, the judiciary must rise to the challenge of being accessible, intelligible, and answerable, without compromising its independence.
CJI Gavai highlighted the steps taken by the apex court in enhancing transparency and accessibility and said to bolster public confidence through transparency has been the voluntary disclosure of assets by the judges of the Supreme Court, promoting greater accountability and setting an example of ethical leadership.
“The Supreme Court has itself held that judges, as public functionaries, are accountable to the people. The court maintains a dedicated portal where judges’ declarations are made public, demonstrating that judges are willing to subject themselves to a degree of scrutiny, similar to other civil functionaries,” he said.
CJI Gavai added that to enhance public transparency, the Supreme Court of India also initiated live-streaming of its Constitution-bench cases.
“However, as with any powerful tool, live streaming must be wielded with care, as fake news or out-of-context court proceedings can negatively shape public perception. Only last week, one of my colleagues in a lighter vein counselled a junior counsel on the art of court craft and soft skills. Instead, his statement was taken out of context and reported in the media as, ‘Our ego is very fragile; if you offend it, your case will go out’,” the CJI flagged.
CJI Gavai also justified the collegium system for appointment of judges in higher judiciary and pointed out that until 1993, it was the executive that had the final say in the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and high courts.
“During this period, the executive twice superseded the senior-most judges in appointing the CJI, which went against established tradition,” he said, adding the collegium system was meant to reduce executive interference and maintain the judiciary’s autonomy in its appointments.
He said, “There may be criticisms of collegium system, but any solution must not come at the cost of judicial independence. Judges must be free from external control.”
