Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave has alleged that corruption within the Supreme Court has caused serious damage to justice, while arguing that the judicial system increasingly works to the advantage of the rich, powerful and executive. Dave did not identify any judge or place case-specific material in support of the allegation during the speech.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave has made a sweeping criticism of the Indian judiciary, alleging that the Supreme Court has had numerous corrupt judges and that their conduct has inflicted “great damage” on justice.
Dave made the remarks while delivering the 17th K.M. Bashir Memorial Lecture on the theme, “Are We Failing The Constitution Or Has The Constitution Failed Us?”
Drawing on his experience at the Bar, Dave said that the judiciary includes some outstanding judges. He then added that there had also been “so many corrupt judges” in the Supreme Court that he had “lost count”.
“I can tell you, as having been a lawyer for 48 years in the judiciary, that the judiciary has some outstanding judges, but there have been so many corrupt judges that I have lost count now in the Supreme Court. I’ve lost count. They have done great damage to justice.”
“The rich and the powerful have hijacked the judicial system from us. Their cases are heard fast. Their cases always succeed. You open up a newspaper and you will find that the largest industrial houses every second or third day get some judgment in their favour. It’s very surprising how they succeed in all cases.”
Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave
The allegation was expressed as Dave’s assessment of the institution. He did not name any serving or former judge, identify particular judgments as products of corruption, or present case-specific evidence during this portion of the lecture. His remarks therefore remain a general allegation made in a public speech, not a judicial or disciplinary finding.
“Rich And Powerful Have Hijacked The Judicial System”
Dave linked his corruption allegation to what he described as unequal access to justice. According to him, the rich and powerful have “hijacked” the judicial system because their cases are listed and heard quickly, while ordinary litigants struggle for comparable attention.
He further claimed that influential litigants tend to succeed, presenting this as evidence of a system that no longer offers equal justice in practice. The criticism was directed not merely at individual outcomes but at listing priorities, institutional access and the perceived ability of powerful parties to secure urgent hearings.
Dave’s central argument was that constitutional guarantees mean little unless courts remain equally accessible to citizens irrespective of wealth, political proximity or social status. In his telling, unequal access to judicial time is itself a constitutional problem because it shapes who can effectively enforce rights.
Judiciary Accused Of Failing To Check Executive Power
The Senior Advocate also accused the judiciary of increasingly supporting an executive that has grown more powerful. He said fundamental rights were not being protected adequately and alleged that the Supreme Court was frequently unwilling to intervene even when rights appeared to be under threat.
Dave compared contemporary conditions with the experience of the Emergency, arguing that constitutional excesses should not be understood solely through the record of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. According to him, the country has witnessed serious institutional decline over the past 12 years as well.
His formulation placed the judiciary and media together as two institutions capable of checking abuse of power, but which, in his assessment, had “failed” citizens. While he criticised the media for avoiding difficult questions, he reserved his sharpest legal criticism for the courts’ alleged failure to enforce fundamental rights against the State.
Constitution “Has Not Failed Us”, Says Dave
Despite his criticism, Dave rejected the suggestion that the Constitution itself had failed. He described it as a foundational document capable of surviving across generations, while arguing that institutions and those entrusted with public power had systematically weakened its promises.
His judicial criticism formed part of that broader thesis: that the constitutional text continues to promise justice, liberty, equality and fraternity, but the institutions responsible for translating those promises into lived reality have fallen short.
The remarks are likely to renew debate over judicial accountability, listing practices and institutional transparency. At the same time, the seriousness of an allegation of corruption against constitutional court judges makes precision important. Dave’s comments were not accompanied, in the lecture, by names or evidence that could permit any specific allegation to be independently tested.
Speech: 17th K.M. Bashir Memorial Lecture
Speaker: Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave
Theme: “Are We Failing The Constitution Or Has The Constitution Failed Us?”