Mathews J Nedumpara
22nd June 2026
I am perceived as a great critic of the Indian judiciary. But the truth is that, fearing backlash, I have refrained from expressing my opinion bluntly. I have been very hesitant in telling the world the real truth. I am slowly gathering the courage to speak honestly about our courts, lawyers and judges.
2.Of all evils, the worst is incompetence, lack of intellectual honesty and arrogance. If I were to write everything at one stretch, I am unable to imagine the outrage it might invite.
Justice Ruma Pal wrote about the seven deadly sins of the Indian judiciary. My list is much longer. Today, I deal with one of the many dreaded sins — ignorance of the fundamental principles of jurisprudence. Most of the judges do not know the true meaning of the doctrines of estoppel, rem judicatam, res judicata, res inter alios, stare decisis, merger, transit in rem judicatam, etc. That is the reason why they say judgments of the Supreme Court are the law of the land. Most of the lawyers and judges of the Supreme Court do not know the difference between a judgment in personam and a judgment in rem. That is the reason why the Court has repeatedly held that a judgment in rem is a declaration of law under Article 141.The Supreme Court entertains PILs and suo motu PILs out of ignorance of the doctrine of res inter alios acta. They do not know that no court has the power to bind those who are not before it.
- The judgment in Kesavananda Bharati is a product of ignorance of the fundamental principle of jurisprudence that nothing is justiciable unless there is an infringement of rights.
- Article 32 of the Constitution is also a product of the ignorance of the fundamental principle of law that the Supreme Court cannot be the first court of original jurisdiction, and that if that be so, there ought to be a court of appeal. It is unfathomable how our founding fathers could never have imagined that if the Supreme Court is the court of original jurisdiction to embark upon any controversy touching upon fundamental rights, then we would need a Supreme Court of hundreds, if not thousands, of judges.
4.Ignorance of law we can understand. But what is unbearable is intellectual dishonesty. This is the worst of all vices. There are many varieties of intellectual dishonesty. I will only deal with one today. That is the non-recording of your contentions at all. You had argued a case after thorough preparation. The judges do not want to allow your case, either out of dislike for you or for some other reason. They would not record your contentions at all. You had argued the case for one hour. Yet, there is not a whisper about what you had argued — and in particular, your contentions on issues on which the court has found against you. You are flabbergasted.