Law Commission Member Criticizes Retired Judges’ Political Activism

A member of India’s Law Commission, Hitesh Jain, has publicly criticized retired judges for what he describes as their increasingly political behavior. His remarks follow a recent defense of B Sudershan Reddy, the opposition’s vice president candidate, who has faced severe criticism from Union Home Minister Amit Shah. Jain’s comments were made on August 29, 2023, in New Delhi and underline a growing concern regarding the role of retired judges in contemporary political discourse.

Jain specifically targeted the actions of 18 former judges who defended Reddy against Shah’s allegations. He expressed concern about a trend where retired judges act more like political activists than impartial arbiters. “From Justice Madan Lokur to Justice S. Muralidhar, Justice Sanjib Banerjee, and now Justice Abhay Oka, their interventions increasingly resemble partisan posturing rather than a principled stand on judicial independence,” Jain stated on the social media platform X.

The backdrop of this controversy involves Reddy’s past judicial decision to disband Salwa Judum, a controversial organization of tribal youths who allied with police forces against Naxalite insurgents in Chhattisgarh. Shah accused Reddy of “supporting” Naxalism and claimed that if not for Reddy’s ruling, Left Wing Extremism would have diminished by 2020.

In response, the 18 retired judges labeled Shah’s comments as “unfortunate,” asserting that they misinterpreted Reddy’s judgment. They emphasized the importance of maintaining a discourse grounded in judicial integrity and independence. “The statement of Union Home Minister Amit Shah, publicly misinterpreting the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Salwa Judum case, is unfortunate,” read the statement issued by the former judges.

Jain further criticized these retired judges for failing to address pressing issues within the judicial system, such as the condition of the lower judiciary and delays in judicial appointments. He argued that true judicial independence is demonstrated through the day-to-day functioning of district and magistrate courts, where the lives of millions hang in the balance.

He remarked, “These very judges, who now claim to be custodians of democracy, remained conspicuously silent on the real issues: the state of the lower judiciary, delays in appointments, and the conditions under which justice is delivered to common citizens.” Jain’s critique reflects a broader debate about the roles and responsibilities of judges, both in and out of office, and their impact on the political landscape in India.

As the discourse continues, the legal community and the public will be watching closely to see how these dynamics evolve and whether calls for judicial independence will lead to meaningful reforms in the system.