In New Delhi, a cohort of 21 esteemed retired judges from the Supreme Court and high courts addressed a letter to the Chief Justice of India. Their correspondence highlighted the intensifying maneuvers by “certain groups aiming to subvert the judiciary through orchestrated pressures, fabrications, and public denigrations.” These detractors, driven by narrow political motives and self-serving agendas, are working to diminish public trust in the judicial system, the judges stated.

The retired judges, including four from the Supreme Court, did not specify the exact incidents that prompted their communication. Nevertheless, the letter was penned amidst a contentious exchange between the ruling BJP and opposition parties regarding measures against certain opposition leaders facing corruption charges.

As affected leaders and their parties seek judicial relief, the BJP frequently accuses them of selectively leveraging court rulings and references a lack of reprieve for several detained leaders to counter opposition criticisms. The retired judges, including justices (retired) Deepak Verma, Krishna Murari, Dinesh Maheshwari, and M. R. Shah, alleged that these critics employed underhanded tactics, aiming to sway judicial procedures by casting doubts on the integrity of courts and judges.

“Such conduct not only affronts the sanctity of our judiciary but also presents a direct threat to the tenets of fairness and impartiality that judges, as custodians of the law, have pledged to uphold,” they articulated in the letter entitled “Need to Protect the Judiciary from Unwarranted Pressures.”

The methodology adopted by these factions is highly disconcerting, spanning the dissemination of unfounded claims to tarnish the judiciary’s image, to engaging in both overt and covert attempts to skew judicial outcomes in their favor, the judges noted.

“This behavior is markedly conspicuous in matters of social, economic, and political consequence, including cases involving certain individuals, where the line between advocacy and manipulation blurs to the detriment of judicial autonomy,” they continued.

The authors expressed particular apprehension about the strategies of misinformation and the mobilization of public sentiment against the judiciary. “The practice of selectively commending judgments that align with one’s perspectives while harshly denouncing those that do not, undermines the very foundation of judicial review and the rule of law,” they remarked.

They urged the judiciary, led by the Supreme Court, to fortify itself against such pressures and safeguard the sanctity and independence of the legal system. “It is imperative that the judiciary remains a cornerstone of democracy, shielded from the capriciousness of fleeting political currents,” they concluded.