Preaching from the dais? How judges showed their political and religious affiliations in 2024

2024 saw unprecedented spotlight being cast on the political leanings and affiliations of judges in India, sparking widespread debate about the sanctity of judicial impartiality.

While the judiciary has long been seen as a pillar of democracy that has by and large risen above the fray of partisan politics, recent remarks and actions by judges - both sitting and retired - have raised concerns about the fine line between their personal beliefs and professional obligations.

The year 2024 witnessed several such instances, sparking critical debates on judicial propriety. In this piece, we take a look at such incidents.

Political judges

In March this year, former Calcutta High Court judge Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay made headlines by resigning from judicial service, joining the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and subsequently winning the 2024 Lok Sabha elections from the Tamluk constituency of West Bengal.

The former judge was set to retire in August this year. However, he stepped down from his post on March 5 after he sent his resignation to President Draupadi Murmu. He had told a news channel on March 3 that he would enter the political arena after resigning from his post.

As a judge, he has repeatedly been accused of flouting the norms of judicial discipline by being a vocal critic of Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee- led TMC government in West Bengal.

He had even given TV interviews as a judge, an act which came under staunch criticism by the Supreme Court which said that sitting judges had no business giving interviews to TV channels.

He had also accused Justice Soumen Sen of "acting for a political party in the State".

His political innings also saw some controversy. In May this year, amid fierce Lok Sabha election campaigns, the Election Commission of India imposed a 24-hour ban on the former judge's campaigning activities after he made some controversial remarks against Mamata Banerjee.

Following in the footsteps of Justice Gangopadhyay, Justice Rohit Arya of the Madhya Pradesh High Court also joined the BJP, three months after his retirement in April this year.

In an interview with Bar & Bench, Justice Arya had said that his philosophy for public good was always in line with ideals of the BJP.

Earlier, Justice Arya made in the news in 2020 when he granted bail to a man accused of molesting a woman on the condition that he gets a rakhi tied his wrist by the victim. The controversial bail condition was later set aside by the Supreme Court.

Other notable cases that Justice Arya had presided over included the bail application by comedian Munawar Faruqui, who had been booked for 'hurting religious sentiments' during a stand up show. The accused comedian later got bail from the Supreme Court.

The obiter truth

This year also saw several instances of judges making controversial remarks during hearings or in their orders, that were later expunged by High Courts or the Supreme Court.

In September, while sentencing a Muslim man to life imprisonment for rape, Uttar Pradesh trial court judge Ravi Diwakar said that Muslim men systematically target Hindu women for conversion to Islam by feigning love and marrying them. He added that the main objective of such "love jihad” was for some anarchist elements of "a particular religion" to establish supremacy over India.

Before this, in an order dated March 5, the same judge waxed eloquent about Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, blurring the lines between the judiciary and the executive. Judge Diwakar opined that Adityanath was the "perfect example of a religious person who holds a seat of power with dedication and sacrifice".

The judge added that riots in India were fueled by the "appeasement of a particular religion."

"The main reason for riots in India is that the political parties here are engaged in appeasement of a particular religion, due to which the morale of prominent people of that particular religion increases so much and they believe that even if riots etc. if they get it done, not even a hair will be left unturned due to power protection," he said.

These remarks were later expunged by the Allahabad High Court, which observed that judges are not expected to express such personal or preconceived notions in their orders.

In September, Karnataka High Court judge, Justice V Srishananda sparked controversy after he referred to a Muslim-dominated locality in Bengaluru as 'Pakistan' during a hearing.

“Go to that Mysuru Road flyover. Every auto rickshaw has got 10 people. It is not applicable because the Mysore flyover right up to the flower market from Gori Palya is in Pakistan, not in India. This is the reality. This is the reality. No matter how strict police officer you put there, they will be beaten up there,” Justice Srishananda said.

The High Court judge was also widely criticised for making a gender insensitive comment in another hearing.

Later, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of these controversial comments and sought a report from the Karnataka High Court's Registrar General. The judge apologised for his comments in open court soon after.

Later, a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court led by then Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud issued a strong note of caution for judges and lawyers, urging them to ensure that their personal biases are not reflected while discharging their duties.

"We can't call any part of the territory of India as Pakistan because that fundamentally is contrary to the territorial integrity of the nation," the Supreme Court added.

It then closed the suo motu proceedings since the High Court judge had apologised for his statements.

The Supreme Court also stepped in to expunge remarks made by Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal of the Allahabad High Court, after he stated that the majority population of India might one day become the minority if religious gatherings facilitating conversions were not curbed.

The Court was dealing with a case involving allegations of forced religious conversion.

The Supreme Court pointed out that such comments were uncalled for while dealing with a bail plea.

"Such general remarks should not be used in any other case," the top court added while eventually granting bail to the accused, who had been booked under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

Out-of-court impropriety

As the year came to a close, a speech made by sitting Allahabad High Court judge Justice Shekhar Kumar at an event held by the legal cell of Hindu right-wing organisation Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) became the subject of controversy.

During his lecture on the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), Justice Yadav commented that India will operate according to the wishes of the majority population.

The judge made a slew of other controversial statements, including using the term "kathmullah", a slur against Muslims.

Amid the furore that followed, an impeachment motion signed by 55 Members of Parliament led by Kapil Sibal was submitted to the Rajya Sabha Secretary General. Later, a plea was moved before the Allahabad High Court challenging the impeachment motion.

On December 14, while speaking at the World Hindu Economic Forum 2024 in Mumbai, Uttar Pradesh's Chief Minister, Yogi Adityanath defended the judge and condemned calls for Justice Yadav's impeachment. This then prompted another petition before the High Court, this time seeking the removal of the Chief Minister for publicly endorsing Justice Yadav.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court Collegium summoned Justice Yadav and cautioned him about his conduct. According to a report by the Times of India, the judge told the Collegium that the media quoted selectively from his speech to stoke controversy. The Collegium, however, was reportedly unconvinced with his explanation and asked him to be circumspect about his conduct, both inside and outside the court.

A 'judges meet' organised by the VHP a few months earlier also came under the scanner. In September, Union Minister of State for Law and Justice, Arjun Ram Meghwal posted about the event on his official X handle.

"Today, by participating in the Judge's Meet ceremony organized by the legal cell of Vishwa Hindu Parishad, we had an elaborate discussion on the topics related to judicial reforms related to the creation of a developed India," the post said.

A functionary in the VHP, speaking on the condition of anonymity, informed Bar & Bench that two sitting Delhi High Court judges attended the event. However, when VHP President Kumar was officially contacted regarding the same, he denied their presence.

Justice Arya, who had joined the BJP after his retirement by then, was among the attendees, as was former Supreme Court judge Justice Hemant Gupta, who retired in October last year.

That same month, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited the official residence of then Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud to participate in a Ganesh puja. The Prime Minister took to X (formerly Twitter) to share his experience.

"Joined Ganesh Puja at the residence of Chief Justice, Justice DY Chandrachud Ji. May Lord Ganesha grant us all happiness, prosperity, and good health," the Prime Minister's post said.

The visit sparked widespread concerns about the broader implications of such informal interactions between the executive and the judiciary.

Speaking at an event organised by the Indian Express, CJI Chandrachud is later reported to have commented that there was 'absolutely nothing wrong' with the visit, and that such social visits do not involve discussions on any pending cases.

What is expected of judges?

Legal experts have long underscored the vital necessity of preserving a distinct and inviolable boundary between the judiciary and the executive, stressing that such separation is indispensable for upholding the sanctity and impartiality of democratic institutions.

The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct is a set of internationally recognised ethical guidelines for judges. It was formulated in 2002 by a group of Chief Justices and other senior judges from around the world under the aegis of the United Nations to enhance judicial accountability and integrity.

The Principles provide a framework for judges to uphold and promote the independence, impartiality and fairness essential to the judiciary's role in maintaining the rule of law. They are meant to ensure that judges conduct themselves in a way that fosters public confidence in the judiciary.

These principles include:

Integrity: The principle that judges must demonstrate honesty and moral uprightness, avoiding any behaviour that could compromise public confidence in the judiciary. Actions suggesting political or ideological bias can erode trust in their impartiality and commitment to justice.

Propriety: Judges are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that upholds the dignity of the judicial office, both professionally and personally. Actions that imply undue proximity to political entities or controversial statements may breach this standard.

Competence and diligence: Judges must exhibit professionalism and dedication to their judicial duties. Remarks or conduct that appear unprofessional or lack the requisite diligence in maintaining neutrality can undermine the judiciary's role as an unbiased arbiter.