Judiciary row deepens as 56 retired judges rebuke 18 peers over politicisation of the bench

A major debate has broken out among retired judges in India over the fine line between judicial independence and political involvement. The controversy started when a group of 18 retired judges came forward to criticise Home Minister Amit Shah for his comments about former Supreme Court judge Justice B. Sudershan Reddy. Shah had recently called the Salwa Judum verdict delivered by Justice Reddy “unfortunate.” The 18 ex-judges said this was a “prejudicial misinterpretation” by a political leader and warned that such remarks could damage the independence of the judiciary.

But this intervention was soon met with a strong reaction from another, much larger group of 56 retired judges, including some of the most respected names in India’s judicial history. This group included former Chief Justices of India P. Sathasivam and Ranjan Gogoi, as well as ex-Supreme Court judges A.K. Sikri and M.R. Shah. They issued a strongly worded statement criticising their colleagues and cautioning against what they saw as political bias being disguised as a defence of judicial independence.

Why 56 ex-judges are unhappy with their peers

The 56 judges said they were alarmed that some former judges were making statements that sounded more like political arguments than legal concerns. According to them, this kind of behaviour damages the reputation of the judiciary and risks presenting judges as political actors rather than impartial figures.

In their letter, they wrote: “These statements are determined to cloak their political partisanship under the language of judicial independence. This practice does a great disservice to the institution we once served, as it projects judges as political actors.”

They further argued that if a former judge like Justice Reddy has chosen to step into the world of politics—as he has by contesting the vice-presidential election—then he must defend his decisions in that political space, not under the shield of judicial independence. “Let those who have chosen the path of politics defend themselves in that realm,” the letter said.

The group outlined three major objections:

1. Protecting neutrality of the judiciary – They stressed that the dignity and impartiality of judges is undermined if they are seen to be taking political sides.

2. Keeping political accountability separate – They said Justice Reddy, now a political candidate, must face questions in political debates instead of using his judicial past as protection.

3. Maintaining public trust – They asked their fellow retired judges not to “lend their names to politically motivated statements,” because such actions taint the entire judicial institution and weaken democracy.

This response makes it clear that the 56 judges are deeply concerned about the image of the judiciary. In their view, former judges must maintain a distance from political controversies to protect the credibility of the institution.

The fault line within India’s judicial community

The 18 retired judges who first spoke out had a different perspective. Their statement emphasised the need for civility and restraint in public debate, especially during election periods. They pointed out that court verdicts should not be twisted or misrepresented for political gain. Judges like Kurien Joseph, Madan B. Lokur, and J. Chelameswar, who were part of the group of 18, argued that political leaders should be more careful when commenting on judicial decisions, as such remarks could affect public confidence in the courts.

This clash between the two groups of respected retired judges has highlighted an important divide within India’s legal fraternity. On one side, some believe it is important to defend the judiciary from political attacks. On the other, there are those who feel that in the process of doing so, judges risk being seen as political actors themselves.

The issue is particularly sensitive because Justice B. Sudershan Reddy is directly involved in politics now. His earlier judgment on Salwa Judum—a controversial anti-Maoist vigilante movement in Chhattisgarh—was at the centre of the debate after Amit Shah’s criticism. Since Justice Reddy is now contesting for the post of Vice President, many believe his past decisions must be discussed in the political space rather than defended as purely judicial matters.

ALSO READ: PM Modi’s vision sparks a new era in India’s space journey

ALSO READ: Why the UN declaring a famine in Gaza holds critical global importance | Explained

This episode has raised bigger questions about where the line should be drawn between judicial independence and political involvement. Should retired judges intervene in political debates to defend their colleagues? Or should they remain silent to preserve the neutrality and dignity of the judiciary?

For India’s democracy, the stakes are high. The judiciary has long been seen as the guardian of constitutional values, impartiality, and fairness. But when retired judges openly split into groups and issue statements against one another, it creates confusion and risks eroding the public’s trust in the system.

The current controversy has exposed a serious fault line in India’s judicial community. With 18 retired judges defending Justice Reddy and 56 others strongly opposing their stance, the debate has become larger than just one election or one verdict. It is now about how former judges should conduct themselves in public life and how to ensure that the judiciary remains above political battles.

While both sides claim to be defending judicial independence, they disagree on what that means in practice. For ordinary citizens, the hope remains that the judiciary—whether active or retired—continues to stand as a symbol of fairness and impartiality, keeping itself free from the pull of politics.