Telangana HC rising: Time to forge steel-spined justice

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant’s visit to Hyderabad on April 5 to lay the foundation stone for Telangana’s new High Court building complex marks a milestone for justice infrastructure. Yet for ordinary Indians, one question cuts deeper: grand buildings mean nothing if judges fear political reprisal for honest verdicts. Bricks and mortar cannot replace steel-spined judicial independence.

India’s judiciary has long served as the last refuge for the common citizen — farmers fighting land acquisition, students protesting fee hikes, journalists questioning authority. Free speech is safeguarded under Article 19, personal liberty under Article 21, and the right to a fair hearing. However, this sacred trust is facing an unprecedented strain.

On March 22, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, speaking at the Supreme Court Bar Association National Conference, delivered a stark warning: some judges suffer from a “more loyal than the king” syndrome. They deny bail even in deserving cases, condemning students, activists, and journalists to languish in jail for months or years under draconian laws like UAPA. “How do you justify keeping them in jail for months and years together when the maximum sentence is seven years?”, points out a media report. When those sworn to uphold justice appear to bend before executive pressure, every ordinary Indian feels the chill wind of selective justice.

The Constitution deliberately fortified judicial independence. Removing a Supreme Court or High Court judge demands extraordinary hurdles: a motion signed by 100 Lok Sabha or 50 Rajya Sabha members, rigorous inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, two-thirds parliamentary approval in both Houses, and presidential assent. No judge has been impeached since 1947, a testament to the wisdom of the Constitution’s founding farmers. They understood that no government, however popular, should intimidate judges for unpopular verdicts. Yet recent years have brought a troubling pattern: impeachment motions and disciplinary probes against High Court judges often follow rulings that irk the ruling dispensation.

Consider the flashpoints. DMK MPs launched an impeachment notice against Madras High Court’s Justice G R Swaminathan after his order in a temple-dargah dispute triggered clashes. It was backed by over 100 MPs. Delhi High Court Justice Yashwant Varma faces ongoing scrutiny after burnt currency sacks surfaced at his residence in a March 2025 fire; a CJI-led committee substantiated claims, Parliament admitted the motion signed by 146 MPs, and the Supreme Court cleared the path in January. The Allahabad High Court rebuked a civil judge for “daylight judicial murder” — passing a decree for a deceased plaintiff — directing administrative action. These cases highlight real accountability needs, yet their timing after sensitive verdicts fuels suspicion. Are they genuine housecleaning, or veiled warnings to judges who rule against government interests?

Worse still are the public broadsides from ruling party leaders. Post-Waqf Act hearings, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey blamed the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna for “civil war-like” unrest, proposing Parliament’s shutdown — the Supreme Court branded it “scandalous interference.” Former Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar called Article 142 a “nuclear missile” against democracy, questioning court timelines on state bills. The ruling party disavows these as personal views, but repetition after setbacks — electoral bonds invalidation hurting party funds, CAA challenges, Tamil Nadu Governor delays — breeds intimidation. Judges start second-guessing rulings, knowing impeachment motions or public vilification could follow. Justice begins tilting from constitutional law to political loyalty.

Nowhere is this pressure more evident than in bail denials for dissenters. Justice Bhuyan spotlighted reckless FIRs over “trivial” acts — student protests, social media memes, policy critiques — leading to prolonged detention sans trial. Anti-CAA protesters, Bhima Koregaon activists, and critical journalists rot years under UAPA without full hearing. Lower courts often echo executive pressure, forcing the Supreme Court to form special investigation teams just to secure basic relief. For the small trader sharing a critical social media post, the college student joining a peaceful rally, or the farmer questioning farm laws, the message comes through loud and clear: speak up, and you risk losing your freedom.

Accountability matters — no one disputes that. The Allahabad HC rebuke proves internal mechanisms work fast for misconduct. Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal told the Parliament that over 8,600 complaints received by the CJI office against sitting judges in the past decade signal public demands for integrity and speed. But when scrutiny turns selective and rhetoric intimidates, power imbalances dangerously. Parliament was never meant as a whip against inconvenient judgments.

Balancing transparency and judicial autonomy:

There is a need to revive an enhanced National Judicial Appointments Commission with clear merit-based criteria, strict timelines, and opposition veto power — replacing the collegium system’s opacity while preventing executive dominance. Create an independent National Tribunals Commission to free specialised courts from government ministry control. Enforce a binding ethics code with mandatory full asset disclosures and strict bans on post-retirement government jobs. Mandate time-bound bail hearings.

CJI Surya Kant’s Hyderabad visit lays bare infrastructure’s harsh limits. Towering new court buildings are meaningless without judges shielded from political intimidation and public vilification. These reforms aren’t radical — they simply deliver what every ordinary Indian yearns for: courts dispensing justice without fear or favour. Accountability and independence need not clash; they must reinforce each other.

Those championing constitutional values must end verbal assaults and forge constructive collaboration with the judiciary. Citizens never demanded perfect judges, only honest ones ruling strictly by law, not under pressure. As Telangana’s new High Court rises from the ground, let it symbolise not mere stone and mortar, but steel-spined justice that bends before no one. When public faith in courts erodes, democracy itself flickers. Let us reaffirm this truth: India’s judiciary serves the Constitution alone, not the incumbent government. Only then will it remain the true bastion for the powerless in our vibrant democracy.

(The writer is with the Cholleti BlackRobe Chambers)