Those Who Opposed NJAC Have No Moral Right to Criticize the Appointment of Justice Pancholi or CJI Gavai’s Nephew.

Mathews J Nedumpara.

98205 35428.

29th August 2025.

 

(1) The judiciary is one of the most revered institutions of our democracy. But reverence must not be mistaken for immunity from scrutiny. Judicial power, like any other form of public power, must be exercised transparently, accountably, and in the service of the people.

 

(2) We should long ago have established a system for the selection and appointment of judges akin to that of the IAS, IPS, and other public services—through an open, competitive, and merit-based mechanism. Had such a system been in place, our higher judiciary would have been manned by men and women of far greater calibre, fairness, and commitment to justice. We would have seen judges more empathetic toward the common man, and more respectful in their treatment of lawyers and litigants.

 

(3) The Collegium system, in contrast, is all about the preservation of self-interest and power under the guise of judicial independence.

 

(4) Justices Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph have projected themselves as champions of transparency. Their dishonesty and double standards are as clear as crystal. Justice Kurian Joseph lamented that the Collegium was opaque and spoke in favour of transparency. It drew applause from the common man, but he quietly declared the NJAC unconstitutional. After getting the NJAC quashed, he got his nominees appointed as judges. Justice Gogoi, in his autobiography, has spoken of the pressure exerted by Justice Kurian to get his candidates appointed as judges.

 

(5) Justice Lokur, the son of a judge, rose through a system that has disproportionately favoured the children and kin of the already powerful. Justice Kurian Joseph, too—despite his carefully cultivated image of simplicity and humility—chose to uphold the Collegium, which institutionalizes nepotism and opacity.

 

(6) My own experience speaks volumes about Justice Lokur. A Special Leave Petition I filed, challenging a detailed 52-page judgment of the Bombay High Court which declined the plea for video recording of court proceedings, was summarily dismissed in less than a minute by a bench presided over by Justice Lokur. So much for transparency and open justice.

 

(7) Justice Arun Mishra, also a judge’s son, was elevated primarily on account of his kinship. Unlike Justices Lokur and Kurian Joseph, Justice Arun Mishra had no pretence of being fair or humble. He was the epitome of arrogance and inhumanity. He ordered that the residents of an apartment complex in Cochin—mostly pensioners and expatriates—be evicted and the building demolished. It was done entirely behind their backs. The apartments in question were not illegal structures. The municipality had issued only a show-cause notice; no enquiry was conducted. Harish Salve, who appeared for the Kerala Government, did not tell the court that merely a show-cause notice had been issued. The demolition proceeded, denying the residents any hearing or opportunity to defend their rights.

 

(8) Those who criticize the Collegium today did not raise their voice when it was required. On the contrary, they opposed reform—opposed the NJAC. If they have now understood their mistake, let them also realize that the judiciary cannot be the panacea for all the ills plaguing our country. The real solution lies in all good people joining politics and public life—and not allowing the bad and the corrupt to govern.