A nation cannot prosper without a fair justice system

Judicial corruption is not merely a legal problem; it is a civilisational crisis. When citizens begin to believe that justice can be purchased, delayed, manipulated, or selectively delivered, the moral foundation of society starts collapsing. Courts are meant to be the last refuge of the powerless. If that refuge itself becomes compromised, insensitivity spreads across institutions and ordinary people lose faith not only in law but also in fairness, honesty, and democratic accountability.

India’s judiciary has historically produced towering constitutional guardians, yet repeated allegations involving favoritism, opaque appointments, delayed disciplinary action, post-retirement inducements, and unexplained judicial conduct have intensified public anxiety. The concern today is not merely about individual misconduct; it is about the systemic opacity that shields accountability.

As Nani Palkhivala famously observed, “The judiciary is the last hope of the common man.” When that hope weakens, cynicism enters public life. Citizens begin accepting corruption as normal, influential offenders become emboldened, and ethical behavior appears foolish in comparison to institutional manipulation. A corrupt judicial culture silently legitimises corruption elsewhere because society imitates what institutions tolerate.

One of the major areas under scrutiny is the collegium system of judicial appointments. Conceived to preserve judicial independence from political interference, the system gradually evolved into an opaque mechanism criticised even by former judges and constitutional scholars. The criticism is not against judicial independence itself, which remains essential, but against the absence of transparency and measurable accountability in appointments and transfers.

Former Justice Jasti Chelameswar openly questioned the opacity of the collegium system, arguing that decisions affecting the nation’s highest courts cannot remain beyond public scrutiny. Critics argue that the present structure often functions through informal networks, closed-door consultations, and undisclosed criteria. The absence of publicly available reasoning for selections or rejections breeds suspicion of favoritism and institutional bias.

Transparency does not weaken judicial independence; rather, it strengthens legitimacy. In mature democracies, institutions survive not because they are beyond criticism, but because they are answerable to constitutional morality. When judges are perceived as unaccountable elites insulated from consequences, public anger naturally intensifies.

This is precisely why many legal experts now advocate extremely harsh anti-corruption mechanisms within the judiciary. Such measures are not meant to intimidate honest judges; they are intended to isolate and punish the dishonest minority whose conduct damages the credibility of the entire institution. Judicial corruption is uniquely dangerous because it corrupts the authority meant to punish all other corruption.

Dr BR Ambedkar had warned that however good a Constitution may be, it becomes ineffective if those implementing it are not good. His observation is profoundly relevant today. A dishonest police officer can damage investigations, a corrupt bureaucrat can delay governance, but a compromised judge can distort justice itself and destroy constitutional trust.

The impeachment process for judges in India is another area demanding urgent reform. At present, impeachment is so cumbersome and politically difficult that it has rarely resulted in meaningful accountability. The high threshold was originally designed to protect judicial independence from political vendetta. However, over time, it has also created near-immunity. Many allegations end in resignation, quiet retirement, or institutional silence instead of transparent adjudication.

Lawmakers must therefore seriously consider diluting procedural barriers for initiating judicial accountability proceedings while still protecting due process. This does not mean allowing political persecution of judges. It means creating credible, time-bound, independent oversight mechanisms capable of investigating misconduct swiftly and transparently. Fear of accountability is essential in every constitutional office. Absolute insulation from scrutiny breeds arrogance, and arrogance eventually breeds corruption. The same principle applies to administrative staff within courts.

Corruption often flourishes not only at the judicial level but within clerical systems involving listings, file movement, certified copies, registry functioning, and procedural access.

For an ordinary litigant, exploitation frequently begins before a case even reaches a judge. The justice system cannot claim moral authority while everyday litigants continue facing procedural extortion and administrative opacity.

Technology offers perhaps the most powerful opportunity to restore public confidence. India’s judicial system still functions with startling levels of manual dependency and procedural opacity despite being burdened with millions of pending cases. Digitisation alone is not enough; intelligent transparency is required.

Artificial intelligence-driven case allocation systems can reduce human manipulation in bench assignment. Blockchain-backed digital records can prevent tampering with files and orders. Mandatory live-streaming of constitutional and high-public-interest matters can improve public trust. Automated disclosure systems can publish judicial performance metrics, adjournment patterns, asset declarations, and timelines of reserved judgments. E-filing and digital tracking can minimise middlemen and registry-level corruption. Most importantly, technology can democratise access to justice. A villager should not have to depend upon brokers or influence networks merely to understand the status of a case. Transparent digital systems reduce discretion, and reduced discretion reduces opportunities for corruption.

Justice VR Krishna Iyer once remarked, “The robe of the judge does not make him superhuman.” Judges, like all public officials, must remain accountable to constitutional ethics. Respect for the judiciary cannot be demanded through secrecy; it must be earned through integrity and transparency.

India does not need weaker courts. It needs cleaner, more transparent, and technologically accountable courts. Judicial independence and judicial accountability are not enemies. They are complementary pillars of constitutional democracy. The common citizen will regain faith only when justice is not merely pronounced in courtrooms, but visibly practiced within the institution itself.

A nation survives not merely on the strength of its economy or military power, but on the faith its people place in the justice system. Yet corruption in India’s judiciary has become an open secret. Policymakers must first acknowledge that a systemic problem exists; merely brushing it aside will only deepen public distrust and weaken democratic institutions. As Martin Luther King Jr. famously said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” The growing perception that justice can be delayed, manipulated, or denied has created serious concerns among ordinary citizens who look upon the judiciary as their final refuge.

The introduction of the Jan Lokpal framework by the NDA Government was seen by many as a significant step toward combating corruption within public institutions, including the judiciary. Recently, the Lokpal observed that allegations of corruption in High Courts and district courts could come under its investigative ambit. However, the Supreme Court expressed reservations, arguing that such oversight could interfere with judicial independence. While judicial freedom is essential in a democracy, accountability is equally indispensable. As Montesquieu observed, “There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.” A judiciary insulated from scrutiny risks eroding the very confidence it seeks to protect.

The constitutional process of impeachment for corrupt judges is so cumbersome and politically difficult that it rarely acts as an effective deterrent. Consequently, the common citizen often feels helpless in the face of judicial misconduct. Governments of the day may seek a “committed judiciary” aligned with their political agenda, but this undermines the constitutional promise of free and fair justice. In such circumstances, the poor and marginalised are left wondering where they should go for justice. As BR Ambedkar warned, “Rights are protected not by law but by the social and moral conscience of society.”

The primary duty of any Government is to safeguard national security, maintain internal order, ensure sound fiscal management, and deliver fair and equitable justice. All other responsibilities are secondary to these core obligations. Unfortunately, successive Governments in India have allocated less than 0.05 per cent of the national budget to the justice delivery system. This chronic neglect has contributed to enormous case backlogs, inadequate infrastructure, and the growth of parallel corrupt practices that benefit only a privileged few. In effect, the system alienates 99 per cent of its own meritorious legal fraternity while empowering a small elite class that controls institutional mechanisms.

A strong and transparent judicial system requires substantial investment in infrastructure, technology, training, and judicial manpower. The budgetary allocation for the law and justice sector should be treated with the same seriousness as sectors such as infrastructure, agriculture, rural development, or industry. Justice is not a luxury; it is the foundation upon which democracy rests. As William Ewart Gladstone rightly said, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” Unless urgent reforms are undertaken with political will and institutional honesty, millions of ordinary citizens will continue to suffer in silence, waiting endlessly for the justice that the Constitution promises them.

The author is a social and political analyst; Views presented are personal.