The Fragile Pillar: Rebuilding Public Trust in the Indian Judiciary

The Fragile Pillar: Rebuilding Public Trust in the Indian Judiciary

Authored By : The Spiritual Lawyer 🦅

+91 9823044282

“A trust deficit in the judiciary threatens the very foundation of our institution.”

 — Honorable Chief Justice Of India B.R. Gavai, Supreme Court of India

I. Introduction: The Judiciary and the Public Trust

The judiciary, as a co-equal pillar of democracy, is entrusted with the monumental responsibility of safeguarding constitutional values, enforcing rights, and preserving the rule of law. Yet, this authority is not self-sustaining. As aptly stated by present Honorable CJI Justice B.R. Gavai during his address at the Annual Conference for Judicial Officers in Gujarat (2024), the judiciary’s legitimacy is derived not from coercive power but from the confidence of the public it serves.

The erosion of this trust signals more than institutional decay; it signifies a threat to democratic stability and social order. In the absence of public confidence, even the most well-intentioned verdicts risk being viewed with skepticism or, worse, rejected altogether.

II. The Rationale: Why Public Trust Is Foundational

Honourable CJI Justice Gavai outlined several critical reasons for maintaining public faith in the judiciary:

1. Legitimacy of Authority: Unlike the executive or legislature, judicial authority is persuasive, not coercive. It stems from moral and constitutional legitimacy.

2. Rule of Law: Public compliance with judicial decisions is enhanced when courts are seen as impartial, effective, and just.

3. Prevention of Parallel Systems: Inadequate trust drives citizens toward extra-legal mechanisms — vigilante justice, panchayats, and informal dispute resolutions lacking procedural safeguards.

4. Access to Justice: Trust facilitates approachability; distrust deters litigants from availing remedies guaranteed by law.

Lord Denning encapsulated the sentiment: “Justice must be rooted in confidence; and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking: ‘The judge was biased.’”

III. Causes of the Trust Deficit

A. Judicial Corruption

Instances — or even mere perceptions — of bribery, nepotism, or undue influence corrode public confidence. As former Honorable Chief Justice of India M.N. Venkatachaliah warned, “A single dishonest judge not only dishonours himself but disgraces the entire judiciary.”

B. Delay and Pendency

Litigation fatigue, exacerbated by procedural delays, continues to plague the system. Honorable President Droupadi Murmu rightly identified this as a deterrent to justice-seeking behaviour, particularly among vulnerable groups. Honorable Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer described this reality succinctly: “Justice is a voyage — delayed docking denies relief.”

C. Encroachments on Judicial Independence

Interference by the executive or legislature compromises the judiciary’s autonomy. In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India [(1981) Supp SCC 87], Honorable Justice P.N. Bhagwati underscored: “Judicial independence is the lifeblood of constitutional governance.”

D. Opaqueness and Lack of Reasoned Judgments

The absence of transparency in judicial reasoning fuels suspicion. Honorable Justice Louis Brandeis of the U.S. Supreme Court noted: “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.”

E. Perceived Bias and Insensitive Remarks

Remarks or judgments based on caste, gender, or religion undermine the constitutional commitment to equality and secularism. Honorable CJI Justice Gavai cited a recent instance wherein a High Court judge’s comments about marginalised groups had to be expunged by the Supreme Court — a rare but necessary corrective.

F. Judicial Misconduct and Ethical Lapses

Instances of political alignment, abuse of power, or inappropriate conduct diminish public respect. For example, Honorable CJI Justice Gavai referenced a judge terminated for misbehaviour towards court staff — a disciplinary act that must become more common when warranted.

G. Media Trials and Digital Misinformation

Sensationalism and misreporting can distort perception. A viral clip of the Chief Justice of India stretching during court proceedings was misrepresented as “contempt” — a trivial incident, yet demonstrative of the risks posed by “clickbait journalism.”

IV. Institutional Responses: Pathways to Reform

A. Transparency Through Technology

E-filing, live-streaming, and cause-list digitisation promote transparency. The e-Courts project, along with tools like the National Judicial Data Grid, enhances access and oversight.

B. Internal Accountability Mechanisms

High Courts and the Supreme Court have adopted in-house procedures to probe complaints against judges. Strengthening these bodies is critical for ensuring impartial and effective oversight.

C. Efficient Case Management

Specialised courts, such as Commercial Courts under the 2015 Act, offer models of speed and efficiency. Implementation of time-bound case management and discouragement of routine adjournments is key to systemic overhaul.

D. Sensitisation and Equality-Oriented Adjudication

Judicial training must integrate modules on LGBTIQA+ rights, gender stereotypes, and caste sensitivity. The Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes, released by the Supreme Court in 2023, is a commendable step in this direction.

E. Physical and Digital Accessibility

CJI Justice Gavai emphasized the role of e-Sewa Kendras, ramps, and priority counters in making courts inclusive for persons with disabilities, the elderly, and pregnant women. Accessibility must be institutionalised, not incidental.

V. Conclusion: Toward a Culture of Self-Reflection

Trust in the judiciary cannot be legislated — it must be earned, nurtured, and sustained. It demands institutional vigilance, ethical consistency, and democratic humility. Justice Gavai’s speech was not merely prescriptive but introspective — a call for course correction.

Honorable Justice H.R. Khanna’s immortal dissent during the Emergency stands as a testament: “The greatest danger to liberty lies in insidious encroachments by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”

The Indian judiciary must rise — not defensively, but reflectively — to restore the confidence of the people. For in doing so, it protects not only its own legitimacy but the very spirit of constitutional democracy.

Thank you for reading.

Authored by 

The Spiritual Lawyer 🦅 

+91 9823044282

2008

19th Shravan 14234

10th August 2025