1. There are ever so many good men and women serving as judges and senior lawyers. I have had occasion to interact with many of them—contemporaries and seniors—on the subject of judicial reforms. They agree with me that our justice delivery system is in near shambles, and they privately concur that a few simple measures can resolve most of the problems.

2. Huge backlog and the often wilful denial of justice due to the exercise of discretionary or “face value” jurisdiction is one prime concern. The simple solution is to abolish Article 226 and make the civil court the true constitutional court, as it was prior to the coming into force of the Constitution.

3. Nobody accuses the civil courts of favouritism, “face law,” or the “uncle judge” syndrome. The main complaints against them are delay, incompetence, and even corruption.

4. In contrast, the main complaints against the High Courts are nepotism, favouritism, and “face law.” The simple solution would be to abolish the collegium system and bring back the NJAC. I have been making repeated efforts towards this since 2015, when the NJAC was quashed by the Supreme Court. I have repeatedly invoked Articles 137 and 32 seeking reconsideration of the judgment in the NJAC case.

5. Unbelievable as it may sound, despite former CJI Justice Chandrachud assuring me in open court that he will constitute a bench to hear the matter, his own Registrar de-registered WP No. 1005/2022 and then lodged/dismissed it. Justice Chandrachud had this done knowing well that it would be difficult to counter the contentions in favour of the NJAC if the matter were heard in open court. To my disbelief, Justice Khanna, whom I had considered would be fairer, followed suit. I did not even make an attempt when Justice Gavai was the Chief Justice, as I thought it would be an exercise in futility. Justice Surya Kant is a first-generation lawyer. He knows well the difficulties faced by ordinary lawyers and litigants, unlike those who have become Chief Justices because of their kinship or godfathers. I have mentioned my plea for the restoration of the NJAC before Justice Suryakant twice.

6. The system of judges designating lawyers as senior advocates has probably caused greater harm to our justice delivery system than anything else. When judges appointed themselves as judges, they mostly anointed their own progenies and those in their inner circles as senior advocates.

7. Still worse, the designated lawyers were given favourable treatment. Designation is increasingly seen as an insignia of the connection a lawyer enjoys with judges and their families.

8. The legal profession today has become an industry, with 95 percent of the revenue being monopolised by a microscopic minority. Their primary strength lies in the familial and social connections they enjoy with judges and their families.

9. Judicial law-making and the tyranny of precedent constitute the greatest of all maladies we face today. Other maladies can be explained easily, but the tyranny of precedent is one that is difficult even for many lawyers to fully understand. The same holds true for the nonsense of the basic structure theory and the practice of PILs, which are contrary to elementary principles of jurisprudence and natural justice.

10. I have never seen any of the eminent men and women—lawyers and judges—speak publicly about these real vices and the practical solutions. Why? Because, one way or another, they are all beneficiaries of the system and have profited from it immensely. That is why even judges and lawyers whom we hold in high esteem for their innate goodness—Justices Oka, Muralidhar, KM Joseph, and lawyers like Dushyant Dave—remain largely silent on issues such as judicial corruption, abolition of the collegium, senior designations, contempt of court, restoration of the one-third transfer policy, the Judicial Accountability and Standards Bill, abolition of absolute judicial immunity, video recording of court proceedings, preservation of such recordings, live streaming, and many other pressing reforms.

11. The Government needs to be criticised, for the right to dissent is the core of democracy. This principle ought to apply equally to the judiciary because, in reality, our judiciary is no longer a meek institution “without purse or sword,” but has become the omnipotent king-emperor that enacts laws through PILs and suo motu PILs, and governs the country through “continuing mandamus.”

12. There are only two categories of critics: those who oppose the Government and those who support it. The retired judges, lawyers, and eminent personalities who oppose the Government blame it without rhyme or reason, while those who support the Government offer only half-hearted criticism of the judiciary. They take positions that serve their vested interests. I have hardly come across anyone who is truly independent, objective, and impartial in their criticism. That is extremely unfortunate.

13. I have always been conscious of my insignificance. I enjoy no political clout and no support from any industry or religious organisation. Despite this, I often find that, in a sense, I am the sole voice in this country raising these issues publicly and speaking for the long-overdue reforms. Everyone else does so only in private! What a tragedy.