In a development that has sparked widespread concern across India’s legal fraternity, retired Supreme Court Justice Abhay S. Oka has publicly raised serious apprehensions about the state of judicial independence India faces today. During the Justice H.R. Khanna Memorial Lecture delivered in Goa, Justice Oka emphasised that the independence of India’s judiciary has been facing serious challenges for decades, regardless of which political party is in power. His candid remarks represent one of the most significant warnings from a senior jurist about threats to the constitutional principle that serves as democracy’s bedrock.
Also Read: Judicial Independence India 2025
Other: Mamta Banerjee Clarification
Justice Oka, who retired from the Supreme Court in May 2025 after a distinguished career spanning over four decades, has become increasingly vocal about the challenges confronting judicial independence in India that must be addressed. He stated that judicial independence is not a one-time struggle but an ongoing battle that requires vigilance and commitment at all times, adding that whether during an Emergency or under any government, there is always a threat to the independence of the judiciary. His appeal to both judges and lawyers to remain continuously alert in safeguarding the autonomy of the judicial system underscores the gravity of the situation.
The Flawed Appointment Process: A Critical Vulnerability
One of the most concerning aspects affecting judicial independence that India must confront involves the appointment process for judges. Justice Oka pointed out that the flawed appointment process is creating a negative perception among senior lawyers, deterring them from joining the judiciary, with bright lawyers reluctant to accept judgeship as they fear the process will drag, and even Chief Justices finding it hard to convince candidates. This deterioration in the appointment mechanism represents a fundamental threat to the quality and autonomy of India’s judiciary.
Justice Oka raised concerns about the existing collegium system for appointing judges, asserting the necessity for an improved framework, addressing the intrinsic flaws present within the judiciary and executive, and criticising government delays in the process, particularly the non-implementation of judgments allowing for government reconsideration of collegium recommendations. The delays in implementing collegium recommendations have become a contentious issue, with qualified candidates withdrawing their consent after prolonged waiting periods, further weakening the judicial independence India requires to function effectively.
Media Trials and Political Pressure: Erosion of Institutional Integrity
Justice Oka has been particularly vocal about the dangers of media trials and political interference in judicial matters. He expressed concern over the growing trend of “mob rule” incited by politicians who capitalise on certain incidents and promise capital punishment for the accused, emphasising that only the judiciary has the authority to pass legal verdicts and warning that such actions by politicians are dangerous and unconstitutional. This phenomenon directly threatens the judicial independence that India’s Constitution guarantees.
Justice Oka pointed out that society must understand that judges must decide as per law, whether the death penalty is given is for the judge to decide, and politicians cannot say whether the death penalty should be imposed or not. The rising trend of populist political rhetoric in criminal cases creates undue pressure on the judiciary, undermining the principle that judicial independence in India relies upon for fair adjudication.
Furthermore, Justice Oka observed a disturbing trend over the last decade where unscrupulous litigants file complaints against judges with the intent to malign their reputations, expressing grave concern over how these complaints, even when frivolous, are often leaked and go viral on social media. These orchestrated attacks on judges represent another dimension of threats to judicial independence India faces in the digital age.
Historical Context and Constitutional Courage
In his addresses, Justice Oka has repeatedly invoked historical examples of judicial courage to emphasise the importance of protecting judicial independence that India needs. He remembered the landmark dissenting opinion by Justice H.R. Khanna in the infamous ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla case during the Emergency era, a decision which cost Justice Khanna the position of Chief Justice of India but earned him lasting respect for upholding the Constitution. These historical references serve as powerful reminders of the price judges have paid for defending judicial independence that India’s founding fathers envisioned.
Justice Oka’s warnings gain additional weight considering his own distinguished career. Throughout his tenure, he demonstrated an unwavering commitment to constitutional principles, delivering judgments that protected fundamental rights and liberty. His colleagues described him as fearless and principled, qualities essential for maintaining the judicial independence India requires.
Public Perception and Institutional Credibility
Addressing a critical aspect of judicial independence, India must confront, Justice Oka acknowledged the perception among ordinary citizens that the judiciary is not fully independent and stated that judges should introspect more, questioning why common people and litigants have the impression that the judiciary is not independent. This candid acknowledgement reflects a deeper crisis of public confidence that threatens the legitimacy of judicial institutions.
Justice Oka stated that the judiciary and legal institutions had no right to pat their backs and say that the common man had faith in the judiciary, noting the statement was not substantially correct, given that 4.54 crore cases were pending before various courts, out of which 25-30 per cent were around 10 years old. The massive backlog of cases and delayed justice delivery compounds the challenges to judicial independence India experiences.
Structural Reforms and Systemic Issues
Structural Reforms and Systemic IssuesJustice Oka has also highlighted structural problems affecting judicial independence in India that need to be addressed urgently. He pointed out that the Supreme Court has become too Chief Justice-centric, suggesting that reforms are necessary to reflect the diversity of perspectives among the 34 judges from different parts of the country. This concentration of power in the office of the Chief Justice potentially compromises the collegial nature of the Supreme Court’s functioning.
The infrastructure deficit, particularly in states like Maharashtra, further undermines the judicial independence India requires. Justice Oka contrasted the inadequate facilities provided to the Maharashtra judiciary with the superior infrastructure in Karnataka, demonstrating how resource constraints can affect judicial functioning and autonomy.
Call to Action: Vigilance and Reform
Justice Oka’s warnings about threats to judicial independence in India must come at a crucial juncture for Indian democracy. His emphasis on continuous vigilance, institutional reforms, and protection from external pressures provides a roadmap for strengthening judicial autonomy. The legal community, civil society, and political leadership must heed these warnings and work collaboratively to preserve the independence of the judiciary.
The separation of powers doctrine and judicial independence India’s Constitution enshrines are not abstract principles but practical necessities for democratic governance. As Justice Oka’s statements demonstrate, these principles face persistent threats from multiple directions—delayed appointments, political interference, media trials, and systemic weaknesses in the appointment process.
Conclusion: Democracy’s Foundation at Stake
The concerns raised by Justice Abhay S. Oka about judicial independence India faces represent more than academic discourse—they constitute a warning about democracy’s fundamental infrastructure. His career, marked by fearless jurisprudence and constitutional commitment, lends credibility to these warnings. The judicial independence India’s founding fathers envisioned requires constant protection from encroachment, whether from the executive, legislature, or other external forces.
As Justice Oka emphasised through his speeches and judgments, safeguarding judicial independence in India is not a one-time achievement but an ongoing struggle requiring vigilance from all stakeholders. The legal fraternity, judiciary, and citizens must recognise that an independent judiciary serves as the ultimate guardian of constitutional values and individual liberties. Without robust judicial independence, India’s democratic framework remains vulnerable to authoritarian tendencies and arbitrary governance.
The debate sparked by Justice Oka’s remarks may indeed trigger responses from judicial and political quarters, as originally anticipated. However, his courage in speaking truth to power exemplifies the very judicial independence India must protect—the freedom of judges to uphold the Constitution without fear or favour, regardless of consequences.
