BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra hits back at senior advocate Dushyant Dave’s statement accusing judiciary of compromising under Modi’s rule, calling it baseless and misleading. “Supreme Court has protected rule of law, not surrendered to executive,” he asserts.
New Delhi: On July 19, in a strong response to senior lawyer Dushyant Dave’s controversial comments, the Chairman of the Bar Council of India (BCI), Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, has firmly denied the allegations that the Indian judiciary has failed or compromised under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Dave, who recently retired after serving 48 years at the Bar, had claimed that
“since Modi took over as prime minister, every Chief Justice who assumed office has failed the judiciary. One after another, they compromised hundreds of cases under Modi’s influence.”
This statement triggered a sharp rebuttal from Mishra, who described such sweeping accusations as baseless and lacking factual support.
In a detailed statement issued on Saturday, Mishra said,
“Let us examine the record, fact by fact, chief justice by chief justice, judgement by judgement. Let us evaluate each chief justice of India who served during Narendra Modi’s tenure from May 2014 to the present and assess whether their judicial leadership reflects compromise or courage, bias or constitutional fidelity.”
According to Mishra, the credibility of such serious allegations must be based on facts and not on perception or political rhetoric.
“The credibility of such sweeping allegations cannot rest on rhetoric or perception alone, and it must withstand constitutional scrutiny and be tested against the objective conduct of the judiciary.”
He went on to argue that since May 2014, the Supreme Court has delivered several landmark judgments that have strengthened the foundations of Indian democracy.
He said,
“A closer look reveals that far from failing the Constitution, the Supreme Court under each chief justice since May 2014 has delivered decisions that have affirmed and advanced democratic values, expanded civil liberties, upheld institutional independence, and preserved the foundational principles of our republic.”
Mishra also responded to the argument that the judiciary had given in to the executive, saying that such a claim was not backed by a consistent pattern.
“If the judiciary was indeed the single biggest reason for the collapse of the rule of law, one would expect to find a consistent pattern of judicial surrender to executive authority.”
He countered this assumption by pointing out,
“On the contrary, what emerges is a nuanced and often courageous assertion of judicial independence, frequently in opposition to the executive, and always within the bounds of constitutional discipline.”
Questioning the timing of Dave’s remarks, Mishra noted that these comments came only after his retirement.
He pointed out,
“He now critiques, but only after publicly announcing his retirement.”
Mishra raised doubts about why Dave had not voiced these concerns during his active legal career.
“Mishra questioned the timing and intent behind Dave’s allegations, noting that he did not make such sweeping claims about ‘judicial compromise’ during his active practice before the courts.”
To back his point, Mishra referred to a recent ruling in the case of Tamil Nadu versus Governor, delivered on April 8, where a bench led by Justice J.B. Pardiwala restricted the Governor’s delay in giving assent to state bills.
“This ruling reaffirms the court’s commitment to federalism, representative democracy, and independence of the legislature, once again demonstrating that even in sensitive matters concerning state-centre relations, the judiciary continues to assert its constitutional authority.”
He added that this decision, passed under a judge appointed during the Modi era, showcased the independence of the judiciary.
“The judgement is a fitting capstone in your narrative, illustrating how the Supreme Court, under the guidance of a judge elevated during the Modi era, has vigilantly protected democratic processes from executive encroachment.”
Mishra also acknowledged the role of judges who were not Chief Justices but still made significant contributions.
“This underscores that even non-chief justices appointed during this period, like Justice Pardiwala, have played pivotal roles in upholding constitutional checks and balances.”
He agreed that constructive criticism of judgments is a healthy practice in a democracy. However, he cautioned against vague political attacks that damage public trust.
“In a democracy, criticism of judgements is healthy and necessary but sweeping declarations with ulterior or remote political motives, that discredit every chief justice across 11 years, when unaccompanied by reasoned evidence, without factual basis or legal nuance, erode public trust in institutions and trivialize the moral courage that many judges have shown in the face of intense political and social scrutiny.”
Summing up his position, Mishra made a strong defense of the Indian judiciary.
“The Indian Judiciary has not surrendered, it has stood as a bulwark of liberty, often in the face of political headwinds, societal polarisation, and institutional stress. The Supreme Court of India has not collapsed, it has, time and again, risen to protect the very rule of law that such accusations claim is in danger.”
Click Here to Read More Reports On Dushyant Dave
