#WATCH: Five judges are set to be elevated to the Supreme Court of India. Two among them have superseded judges senior to them. One such judge is Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, G.S. Sandhawalia—an honest, upright judge of unimpeachable integrity. No one pushed for his, or Justice Atul Sreedharan’s elevation within the Collegium.
The CONSISTENT failure to bring fiercely independent and upright judges to the country’s highest constitutional court is becoming one of the GRAVEST failures of the Collegium. Equally troubling, if not more, is the complete SILENCE of the political opposition on these questions. One cannot remain indifferent during appointments and then suddenly discover outrage only after controversial judgments like SIR are delivered.
The judicial institution has been weakened not overnight but through steady erosion. Silence, compromise, opacity, selective courage, and the complete normalisation of mediocrity over brilliance and integrity.
Unfortunately, if this trajectory continues unchecked for a few more years, there will eventually come a point where large sections of people begin LOSING all faith in the very legitimacy of this system itself. And it already appears to have begun.
Courts survive because people continue to believe that justice, fairness, and constitutional morality still meaningfully reside within them. The day that belief collapses—complete chaos. It is something all of us need to think urgently about before it becomes too late.
Rahul Gandhi’s dissent over the CBI Director selection has reopened a larger constitutional question: if the process stays opaque and extensions keep favouring the Executive, what exactly is the CJI there to guarantee?
The Chief Justice of India’s seat in the Prime Minister-led three member committee to select a CBI Director produces neither neutrality, nor transparency, nor accountability. So what purpose does it then serve?
It merely produces a halo to a process that @RahulGandhi now describes as “biased”. If Gandhi’s account in his dissent note is accurate, and that indeed the procedure currently only favours a “pre-decided candidate”, then how does it reflect on Chief Justice of India Surya Kant?
The larger issue I address in this special column for @frontline_india is that it is not publicly known whether the Chief Justice himself received the full records of persons he was going to vote for.
If the Leader of the Opposition was kept in the dark, the judge may well have been kept there beside him. In this column, I write about what happened after I attempted to intervene through the RTI Act to uncover the truth behind the CJI’s participation.
In May 2023, this author had filed a RTI application addressed to the Supreme Court of India on the role of its Chief Justice in the appointment of the CBI Director. The application sought answers on a few pointed questions:
1. when did the CJI’s Office receive the list of eligible officers being considered for the post, 2. whether service records, integrity records, personal details, and other relevant material were received. 3. And more importantly, what criteria did the Chief Justice’s side apply for shortlisting names and what inputs, if any, did the Chief Justice provide during the Committee’s meeting.
This was the same month when the selection process was on which ultimately led to current Director Praveen Sood’s appointment.
In reply, the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Supreme Court rejected the RTI citing three sections of the RTI Act, two of which were exemptions from disclosure.
First, section 8(1)(e) which exempts disclosure of information held in a fiduciary relationship.
Second, section 8(1)(j) which relates to personal information which has no connection to public activity or public interest.
And third, section 11(1) which is actually just a procedure to be followed if information concerning third parties are to be disclosed. It is not a free-standing exemption clause.
As is routine with the Supreme Court’s RTI responses, the rejection was not justified. It is a settled principle of law that the PIO ought to justify why a particular exemption clause has been invoked and how it applies in the facts of the case.
If the nation’s highest judicial chair is surrendered to a candidate of gravely doubtful integrity, Chief Justice B.R. Gavai’s name will be etched as the man who bartered it away.
Will he now hold any moral authority to invoke the ideals of Babasaheb Ambedkar in his many lectures? To preside over compromise of possibly the highest evil while preaching constitutional fidelity would be nothing short of desecration.
The government was very keen on elevating Justice Vipul M. Pancholi to the Supreme Court in May 2025. However, Justice Nagarathna and with Justice Vikram Nath opposed. Justice Nagarathna stood her ground and blocked the proposal.
The government relented only when she, and the rest of the Collegium, agreed to Karnataka High Court Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria’s elevation to the Supreme Court. Anjaria’s parent High Court is also Gujarat.
Justice Nagarathna was apparently assured that a compromise on Anjaria meant that Pancholi’s candidature would be shelved.
However, to her utter surprise, Chief Justice Pancholi’s name surfaced again, mere three months later, and the other Collegium members—Chief Justice Gavai, and Justices Surya Kant, Nath, and J.K. Maheshwari—voted in his favour.
Surendra Gadling’s bail application has become a Kafkaesque file in the Supreme Court. It appears on the cause list, only to vanish. It is mentioned, only to be deferred. It is scheduled, only to be adjourned. The judge presiding over it, Justice M.M. Sundresh, has turned the very act of not hearing into a form of adjudication. A 🧵.
Gadling, a human rights activist, has been in jail under UAPA charges in the Bhima Koregaon case for over seven years now. His bail in another case of arson from 2016 was rejected by the Bombay High Court in February 2023. His appeal has since been pending in the Supreme Court, without a hearing.
The bail plea has been listed 17 times since it was first filed in August 2023.
Of them, 13 times before Justice Sundresh’s bench.
Four times, the matter was not listed despite a promise to list.
When liberty itself is at stake, such judicial lethargy begins to look less like a usual delay and more like a deliberate design.
Once again, a Chief Justice of India finds himself in the throes of a propriety crisis. An important case has somehow made its way before Chief Justice Gavai’s bench, in violation of Supreme Court’s own rules and convention.
Chief Justice Gavai must face an uncomfortable question: Is he any better than his predecessors?
The controversy stems from the aftermath of a remarkable May 2025 judgment known as the Vanashakti case, delivered by a Bench headed by Justice Abhay Oka, consisting Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
In short, the judgment struck down as “illegal” a 2017 and 2021 procedure systemised by the Environment Ministry for ex-post facto environmental clearance. Any company that failed to get env clearance *prior* to starting the project could do so under the regime after paying a penalty.
2/16
The judgment held this system—which legalised the corporates’ sins later by obtaining clearance post hoc—to be illegal. Remarkably, it also restrained the Union Government from coming up with a similar system in future. Justice Oka retired shortly after this judgment.
The many analyses explaining the Aam Aadmi Party’s poll debacle in Delhi are missing one important player – the Supreme Court. While it dilly-dallied on fixing the grave constitutional crisis, governance suffered. A thread.
It’s not that AAP has never delivered on its promises; Delhi’s health and education landscape saw great changes. But, beginning 2015, bit by bit, the elected government’s powers to govern had been taken away by the Union government, and the judiciary allowed this to happen.
It began in May 2015, with a circular that took away the newly elected @ArvindKejriwal government. What followed was a contentious battle in court. Several hurdles were posed by the bureaucrats. Read more about this in the piece.
It is rather rich of the Supreme Court to preach morality when, not too long ago, not a single Supreme Court judge publicly objected to their Chief Justice presiding over cases despite serious allegations of sexual harassment. 1/10
The condition imposed on @BeerBicepsGuy and "his associates" to not air "any shows " for the time being until further orders is a sweeping condition.
One would expect the highest court to explain why it deemed it necessary to bar someone from their profession and gag their future speech-both fundamental rights. 2/10
Yet, the Supreme Court imposed this condition arbitrarily – paternalistic, sweeping, and entirely unaccountable – emblematic of its mai-baap approach, wherein it sees itself as the ultimate arbiter of all things, unburdened by the need to justify its own excesses. 3/10