Retired Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay S Oka said he would have declined invitations from Adhivakta Parishad as a sitting judge due to perceived political leanings. He highlighted the need for strict judicial neutrality and urged both sitting and retired judges to maintain dignity and public trust in the legal system.
Former Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay S Oka recently shared important views on judicial ethics, neutrality, and the challenges faced by India’s legal system. Speaking at an event organised by the Adhivakta Parishad Supreme Court Unit on the theme “Robes Cannot Be Rented”, Justice Oka highlighted how judges must maintain independence and avoid any situation that may affect public trust.
He clearly stated that while he was a sitting judge, he would have refused to attend events organised by groups that may have political leanings. Emphasising the importance of neutrality, he said,
“For example, if as a sitting judge, I was invited by Adhivakta Parishad to speak on its platform, I would have politely said no, because my belief was Adhivakta Parishad does have political inclinations.”
Justice Oka explained that judges are bound by strict standards of conduct. These standards are necessary to protect the image of the judiciary and to ensure that people continue to have faith in the justice delivery system. According to him, even a perception of bias can damage public confidence.
He further stressed that this sense of responsibility does not end after retirement. He said that retired judges of constitutional courts should also act with restraint and avoid taking up roles or assignments that may reduce the dignity of the judicial office. In this context, he spoke about extradition cases involving fugitives and advised caution.
Referring to recent proceedings involving fugitive businessman Nirav Modi, Justice Oka said that retired judges should generally avoid giving legal opinions at the request of such individuals. However, he made an important distinction by adding that if a foreign court independently seeks assistance, then there is nothing wrong in a retired judge providing expert opinion.
He also addressed the controversy around opinions given by retired judges in such matters and urged people to respond in a balanced way. According to him, criticism of India’s legal system in foreign courts should not be dismissed immediately but should be taken as an opportunity for self-reflection and improvement.
Justice Oka pointed out serious concerns within the criminal justice system, especially regarding bail and pre-trial detention. He noted that many accused persons are denied bail even when they deserve it, and are forced to stay in jail for long periods before their trial begins. This, he said, effectively turns detention into punishment without conviction.
He also highlighted the issue of overcrowded prisons and custodial deaths, calling them major structural problems. Stressing the importance of fundamental rights, he said that even prisoners continue to enjoy protection under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
At the same time, Justice Oka acknowledged that the Indian legal system has strengths. He referred to the fair trial of Ajmal Kasab as an example, noting that even in serious cases, due process and procedural safeguards were properly followed.
Talking about delays in the justice system, Justice Oka said that one of the main reasons is the shortage of judges. He referred to a 2002 direction of the Supreme Court recommending 50 judges per million population, and pointed out that India currently has only about half that number.
He also raised concerns about delays in judicial appointments. According to him, long gaps between recommendations by the Collegium and approvals by the government discourage capable lawyers from accepting judgeship positions.
In addition, he mentioned poor infrastructure in courts as another factor slowing down the justice system and affecting efficiency.
In conclusion, Justice Oka emphasised that real reform in the judiciary requires a combined effort. Strengthening the number of judges, ensuring faster appointments, and improving court infrastructure are essential steps to maintain and restore public confidence in the legal system.
Click Here to Read More On Women’s Entry & Religious
