Retired Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay Oka said that claims about bail favoritism for those close to the ruling party need proof through a systematic study. Speaking at Mumbai Press Club, he stressed the joint duty of judiciary and press to uphold the Constitution and protect citizens’ rights.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MAHARASHTRA: Retired Supreme Court Justice Abhay Oka, while addressing a gathering at the Mumbai Press Club on Friday, spoke about the critical roles of the judiciary and the press in safeguarding the rights of citizens and the democratic structure established by the Constitution.
He pointed out that the court’s role is different from that of the media.
While the judiciary can only decide what is legal and illegal, the press has the power to influence what is considered proper or improper in society.
“As a judge, I don’t have the power to say what that gentleman has said or what he has expressed, is right or wrong. That is not the function of the court. But, as I say, media and press, they can mold public opinion. So they can say, ‘Look, what you have said may not be correct. It may not be proper, or appropriate, or inappropriate.’ All those aspects can be considered by media. And therefore, this is the distinction between the role of media or the press and the court,”
-he said.
Justice Oka emphasised that both the judiciary and the press have a shared responsibility to defend the Constitution.
“Unless the judiciary and the press come together and respect and uphold the ideas under the Constitution, the Preamble and assurance given to the citizens by the Preamble will be virtually redundant. The common duty of both judiciary and press is to uphold the Constitution and to protect the institutions created by the Constitution.”
He urged the media to be alert and bold in exposing violations of fundamental rights and injustice.
According to him:
“Press must come down very heavily against the violation of fundamental rights and injustice caused to the common man.”
While speaking on the topic “Holding the Government to Account: The Role of Independent Judiciary and Free Press”, Justice Oka also addressed a sensitive issue — the perception that bail decisions may be influenced by political connections.
He referred to examples where activists like Umar Khalid and Stan Swamy were denied bail, whereas figures like Ram Rahim allegedly received parole due to proximity to those in power.
He rejected this as an unverified claim, saying it could only be confirmed after a detailed, data-driven study.
“A person, who is entitled to bail as per law, must get bail and there cannot be any dispute on this. However, the contention that those close to a ruling party get bail is a perception. It may be true also but a systematic study is required. Study is needed to see if only people close to ruling party get bail, and once such a study indicates that, then you can say so,”
-Justice Oka stated.
When asked about the controversial case involving burnt currency notes allegedly recovered from the premises of Allahabad High Court Justice Yashwant Varma, Justice Oka said he could not comment as he was part of the consultative process led by the Chief Justice of India.
However, he highlighted the importance of legal protections for judges.
“There is a protection against registration of FIRs against judges. And someday, citizens have to think about it because if that protection is not there, how many FIRs could be registered against judges? In what manner could they discharge their duties? Someday, we have to answer this question… not you, but we,”
-he remarked.
Reiterating his earlier point on the need for an evidence-based approach, Justice Oka repeated,
“Study is needed to see if only people close to ruling party get bail and once such a study indicates that, then you can say so.”
He also underlined the media’s right to question court judgments but insisted that criticism should be based on proper study and understanding.
“I always believe that the media or the common man has the right to offer constructive criticism of judgments delivered by the courts. And when I say constructive criticism, it has to be studied criticism. You can’t just say, ‘I don’t like this judgment, therefore it is wrong’.”
He explained that judges do not respond to criticism due to the discipline of judicial restraint.
“If you criticize a politician or a bureaucrat, he can come back to the media and give a reply to that criticism. But we, as judges, exercise restraint self-restraint and therefore, we do not respond to criticism.”
Justice Oka also referred to past public criticism of former Chief Justices of India who had remarked that:
“judiciary is not expected to perform the role of opposition parties.”
He clarified the real meaning of those statements.
“If the executive commits illegality, if the legislature crosses its limits and brings a legislation which infringes fundamental rights, then it is the duty of the court to strike down that law. What the Chief Justice meant was that courts are concerned only with legality or illegality, and whether a particular action, order or legislation is constitutional or unconstitutional.”
However, he admitted that there is some truth in the criticism that both the judiciary and the press are not functioning with complete independence.
“The same thing is said about the judiciary in some quarters. Even though I have been part of the judiciary for such a long time, I have to accept that this criticism does exist.”
Concluding his address, Justice Oka stressed the importance of an independent judiciary and media in ensuring that the executive stays within its constitutional limits.
Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka: Background and Judicial Career
Early Life and Education:
Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka was born on May 25, 1960. He pursued his law degree from Mumbai University and began his legal career soon after.
His early legal education laid a strong foundation for his later contributions to the Indian judiciary.
Legal Career:
Justice Oka enrolled as an advocate in 1983 with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa. He practiced primarily in the Bombay High Court, specializing in constitutional, civil, and service law matters.
He earned a reputation for his deep knowledge of the law and strong professional ethics.
He also served as the Honorary Secretary of the Bombay Bar Association, a position reflecting the confidence and respect he held among his peers.
Judicial Appointments:
- Judge of the Bombay High Court (2003–2019):
Justice Oka was appointed as a permanent judge of the Bombay High Court in August 2003. Over his 16-year tenure, he delivered several notable judgments, particularly in the areas of civil liberties, public interest litigation, and environmental law. His work was marked by clear reasoning and a principled approach to constitutional interpretation.
- Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court (2019–2021):
He was elevated as the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court on May 10, 2019. During his tenure, he was widely appreciated for his efforts to uphold judicial accountability, streamline case management, and proactively take up issues affecting public welfare. His leadership during the COVID-19 crisis, especially in safeguarding migrant rights and healthcare access, earned him national recognition.
- Judge of the Supreme Court of India (2021–2024):
Justice Oka was appointed to the Supreme Court on August 31, 2021, and served until his retirement on May 24, 2024. In the apex court, he continued his commitment to protecting constitutional rights, defending judicial independence, and delivering reasoned and fair judgments. His opinions often reflected a balance of legal precision and human empathy.
ALSO READ: BREAKING | Supreme Court Rejects Justice Yashwant Varma’s Plea Against Cash Recovery Probe and Removal Recommendation
Judicial Philosophy and Reputation:
Justice Oka is known for his unwavering commitment to the Constitution and rule of law. He has repeatedly emphasized that judges must remain free from political influence, societal pressure, or personal beliefs while deciding cases.
His speeches and judgments reflect a belief that what is legal and constitutional is moral, and anything outside of it is not.
He is widely respected for his integrity, impartiality, and courage to uphold unpopular positions when demanded by law. His commitment to judicial independence has been a recurring theme throughout his career.
Public Stance and Views:
Justice Oka has often spoken publicly on the need for judicial restraint, independence, and the risks of allowing popular morality to influence verdicts.
He has highlighted the importance of dissent, constitutional fidelity, and the moral responsibility of judges to act strictly within the framework of law, not public sentiment.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Justice AS Oka
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
