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

Updated: 21 September 2026

20:20

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

— Justice B. R. Gavai, addressing judicial officers in Gujarat on 19 October 2024, before becoming Chief Justice of India.

For a litigant, public trust becomes concrete at the filing counter, during a hearing, and in the effort to enforce a decree. A farmer contesting a boundary, a woman seeking maintenance, a pensioner claiming retirement benefits, and a small business recovering unpaid dues all approach the judicial system with a common expectation: their grievance will receive an impartial hearing within a meaningful time.

The judiciary’s authority is constitutional and legally enforceable; the Supreme Court also possesses powers to punish contempt. Public confidence gives that authority an enduring social foundation. People must be able to believe that evidence will be examined honestly, that influence will not determine the outcome, and that their dignity will survive the proceedings.

The importance of this distinction received renewed attention on 14 September 2026. Addressing the sixth Ram Jethmalani Memorial Lecture, Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant distinguished public trust from public approval. As reported by The Indian Express, he emphasised fairness of process, openness to scrutiny, and the importance of reasons that even an unsuccessful litigant can examine.

That is a demanding standard. A court must sometimes deliver an unpopular decision to protect a constitutional right. Its credibility depends on the quality, consistency, and independence of the process through which it reaches that decision. Public trust therefore requires both judicial courage and institutional self-examination.

The expectation of a fair hearing has a universal expression in Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognises equal entitlement to a public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal. Within its regional scope, Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights combines fairness and openness with a hearing within a reasonable time before an independent, impartial tribunal established by law. These instruments differ in legal status, but both provide valuable reference points for examining the experience of a person seeking justice.

Delay is one of the most immediate tests. Consider a civil litigant who repeatedly pays for travel, loses a day’s earnings, and returns home without progress. Over time, procedural uncertainty can become economic pressure. A weaker party may accept an inadequate settlement simply because continuing the case has become unaffordable. Even a favourable judgment offers limited reassurance if obtaining possession, recovering money, or securing compliance requires another prolonged struggle.

Kenya’s Constitution gives this concern an explicit democratic foundation. Article 159 states that judicial authority derives from the people and requires justice irrespective of status and without delay. Article 160 protects the judiciary against external control. For India, these provisions offer a useful comparison: the protection of judicial independence can sit alongside clear constitutional expectations about the service courts provide to citizens.

Reform should address this entire journey. Courts need dependable service of summons, realistic hearing schedules, early identification of disputed issues, timely decisions on interim applications, and close supervision of execution proceedings. Unnecessary adjournments should carry appropriate consequences, with room preserved for genuine difficulties and a fair hearing. Governments must support adequate staffing and infrastructure. Performance should be assessed through waiting time, effective hearings, quality of reasons, and enforcement, alongside disposal figures.

Judicial independence is equally important. Every litigant should encounter a judge who can decide without political pressure, personal obligation, or fear of retaliation. Public conduct also matters: partisan associations and apparent conflicts of interest can raise doubts about impartiality. Appointment processes, allocation of judicial work, and recusal practices should be supported by clear, consistently applied standards and appropriate public explanation.

Canada’s Supreme Court, in Valente v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673, linked independence and impartiality with the confidence necessary for the justice system to command respect and acceptance. Germany’s Basic Law protects judicial independence under Article 97(1) and a hearing in accordance with law under Article 103(1). These references help explain why institutional safeguards and a fair opportunity to be heard deserve attention together.

The United States offers a further example. In Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 575 U.S. 433 (2015), the Supreme Court upheld Florida’s restriction on judicial candidates personally soliciting campaign funds, recognising the compelling interest in public confidence in judicial integrity. The case arose in the particular setting of elected judicial office. Its broader relevance lies in the concern that financial relationships can cast doubt on neutrality even where actual favouritism has not been established.

A significant transparency measure is the Supreme Court’s public disclosure of judges’ assets. Its website records the Full Court resolution of 1 April 2025 and states that placing asset declarations on the website is mandatory. This creates an opportunity for scrutiny. Its value should be strengthened through clear formats, timely updates, and an effective process for examining credible concerns. Disclosure is one component of a wider system of integrity.

Accountability must also be fair. An allegation requires examination; it cannot automatically establish misconduct. Judges need protection from complaints intended to intimidate them for an adverse decision. Equally, credible allegations deserve timely, impartial consideration and appropriate action where wrongdoing is established. Institutions should explain their complaint procedures and disclose meaningful information about outcomes, subject to legitimate requirements of confidentiality and due process. The public needs reason to believe that standards are enforced consistently.

Reasoned judgments are another everyday safeguard. A litigant should be able to understand which issues were decided, what evidence mattered, and why an argument succeeded or failed. Clear reasoning makes appellate scrutiny possible and helps expose error. Institutional communication should therefore give serious attention to readable orders, prompt availability of decisions, and reliable access to case information.

The English decision in R v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy, [1924] 1 KB 256, 259, remains an enduring reference for the importance of justice being seen to be done. In his address on 4 June 2025, Mr Justice Nicklin connected open justice with public understanding, scrutiny, and confidence, identifying practical barriers such as access to court information and documents. Transparency requires sustained attention to how people encounter and understand judicial proceedings.

Technology offers practical support. In its July 2026 update, the Union Ministry of Law and Justice described the ₹7,210-crore eCourts Phase III programme and reported 2,515 functioning e-Sewa Kendras across High Courts and District Courts. These initiatives can reduce travel, improve access to records, and help litigants follow their cases. Their success should be measured by the difficulties they actually remove.

Digital access must accommodate people with limited connectivity, limited literacy, or disabilities. Assisted filing, usable help desks, accessible documents, regional-language guidance, and reliable hearing arrangements should develop together. A person should have a workable route to justice even when a portal fails or a device is unavailable. Physical access remains essential: ramps, lifts, seating, toilets, and respectful assistance are part of a functioning court.

Artificial intelligence has added a further responsibility. In Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd., 2026 INSC 668, decided on 2 July 2026, the Supreme Court set aside tribunal decisions involving fabricated precedents and passages wrongly attributed to judgments. It required verification of AI-generated authorities, treated an advocate’s use of unverified fabricated judgments as misconduct, and directed the Bar Council of India to constitute a committee to address the problem.

The practical lesson is clear: every citation must lead to an authentic source, and every claimed proposition must be checked against what that source actually says. Lawyers and judges remain responsible for the material they use. Any adoption of AI should include human supervision, confidentiality safeguards, and procedures for identifying and correcting errors. A convincing paragraph is of little value when its legal foundation does not exist.

An international ethical foundation is available in the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, developed in 2002. Their six values are independence, impartiality, integrity, propriety, equality, and competence and diligence. Provisions 2.2 and 3.2 connect judicial behaviour with public confidence, while provisions 6.5 and 6.6 address prompt performance of duties and courtesy towards court users. They provide guidance for examining both institutional practice and individual conduct.

Trust also depends on how people are treated. On 10 February 2026, in proceedings concerning an Allahabad High Court judgment, the Supreme Court requested the National Judicial Academy to constitute an expert committee on sensitivity and compassion in cases involving sexual offences and vulnerable persons. It also stressed the need for guidance understandable to those it seeks to protect.

That concern deserves attention throughout the justice system. A person’s caste, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or economic position must not become a substitute for evaluating evidence. Judicial training should examine how stereotypes affect questioning, credibility assessments, and courtroom language. Firm case management can coexist with patience and courtesy. The experience of being heard respectfully matters even when the relief sought cannot lawfully be granted.

The Bar shares responsibility for this experience. Advocates should explain fees and litigation risks clearly, communicate developments, prepare carefully, and discourage proceedings that serve only to harass or delay. Clients should never be encouraged to believe that personal access or influence can secure a judicial outcome. For many citizens, their understanding of the entire institution begins with the advice they receive in a lawyer’s office.

Public discussion requires similar care. A short courtroom clip may omit the question being explored, the parties’ submissions, or the eventual order. Journalists and citizens should distinguish oral exchanges from final findings and check the underlying record. Courts, in turn, can support informed discussion through accessible judgments, accurate summaries, and timely factual clarification. Evidence-based criticism should be treated as an opportunity to examine institutional performance.

Accessible alternatives also have a legitimate place. Voluntary mediation and properly conducted settlement processes can help people resolve disputes while preserving relationships. They should offer informed choices, protect against coercion, and account for unequal bargaining power. Such processes must be distinguished from intimidation or vigilante action. A credible justice system gives people lawful ways to resolve conflict and a dependable court when adjudication is necessary.

The fragile pillar can be strengthened through work that is often quiet and unglamorous: a summons served correctly, an interim application heard promptly, a judgment explained clearly, a complaint examined fairly, and a decree effectively enforced. These are the encounters through which institutional promises become believable.

Public trust must be earned repeatedly. It grows when independence is matched by responsibility, technology by care, and authority by respect for the person seeking justice. The judiciary’s most persuasive assurance will always be the experience it offers to the citizen who stands before it with little power, limited resources, and faith that the law will still listen.

The Spiritual Lawyer 🦅

 +91 9823044282