Casteism & Corruption: Weakening India’s Judiciary

Is India’s judicial system, the very foundation of justice, tainted with casteism & corruption? Recent events, such as the discovery of significant wealth at a judge’s residence, have ignited a heated debate across the nation. While discussions often revolve around the individuals involved and the mechanics of illicit financial gains, a critical question remains unaddressed: What are the underlying causes of pervasive corruption within India’s judiciary?

This article delves into the core of this issue, exploring how deeply ingrained casteism acts as a breeding ground for corruption, eroding the integrity of the system and hindering true justice. Is the Indian judiciary a body with a festering wound of casteism, poisoning the entire system? If justice is blind, why does it seem to peek through the blindfold to see a person’s caste?

Table of Contents:

Understanding the Rot: The Core of Judicial Corruption

The Unspoken Truth: Caste & Corruption

The Indian judiciary, often hailed as the last bastion of hope, faces a crisis of credibility. While individual cases of corruption grab headlines, the systemic nature of the problem points to deeper, more troubling roots. The uncomfortable truth is that casteism, a deeply entrenched social hierarchy, plays a significant role in fostering and perpetuating corruption within the system.

J.B. Pardiwala’s Controversial Statement

In 2015, Justice J.B. Pardiwala of the Gujarat High Court sparked controversy by claiming that reservation and corruption were the two biggest problems destroying India.

While corruption is undeniably a destructive force, Pardiwala’s singling out of reservation, a tool designed to uplift marginalized communities, reveals a skewed understanding of the issue. It’s crucial to remember that reservations aim to address historical injustices and ensure representation, while corruption benefits a select few, often those already in positions of power.

The Irony of Pardiwala’s Words

The irony of Pardiwala’s statement lies in the fact that the judiciary itself is a stronghold of upper-caste dominance. With no competitive exams for judge selection, appointments rely heavily on interviews and a closed-door collegium system.

This perpetuates a cycle where individuals from privileged backgrounds, often belonging to specific castes, continue to occupy the highest judicial positions, creating an environment ripe for cronyism and corruption.

Data Speaks Volumes: The Caste Imbalance in the Judiciary

Supreme Injustice: A Skewed Representation

Data reveals a stark reality: the Indian judiciary is far from representative. According to a 2021 article by Namita Bhandare-Ghosh on Bar & Bench, a prominent legal news website, a staggering number of Chief Justices of India (CJIs) have historically been Brahmins.

Of the 47 CJIs until 2021, 14 were Brahmins, a disproportionately high number considering their share of the population is less than 5%. This over-representation highlights the systemic barriers preventing individuals from other castes from reaching the highest judicial office.

The Missing OBCs and Marginalized Communities

The lack of representation extends beyond the Supreme Court. The Bar & Bench report further highlights that until 2018, no judge from the Other Backward Classes (OBC) community had ever been appointed to the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, as of 2021, there was not a single judge from the Scheduled Castes (SC) or Scheduled Tribes (ST) communities in the apex court. This glaring absence underscores the systemic exclusion faced by marginalized communities in the judicial system.

High Courts: Upper Caste Strongholds

The situation in the High Courts is equally concerning. A report by The Wire in 2018, citing information provided by then Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal in the Parliament, revealed that over 76% of High Court judges appointed between 2008 and 2018 were from upper castes .

OBCs accounted for a mere 12%, while Muslims held a meagre 7% representation. SCs and STs were woefully underrepresented at just 12% and 2% respectively. This data paints a clear picture of a judiciary dominated by upper castes, raising serious questions about fairness and impartiality.

The Nexus of Caste and Corruption: How it Works

Favouritism and Nepotism: A Vicious Cycle

The dominance of specific castes within the judiciary fosters an environment of favoritism and nepotism. Individuals from privileged backgrounds often prioritize the advancement of their own caste members, perpetuating a cycle of exclusion and hindering the progress of those from marginalized communities.

This creates a system where meritocracy takes a backseat to caste-based connections, undermining the principles of fairness and equality.

A “You Scratch My Back” System

The concentration of power within a select group allows for the creation of a “you scratch my back” system. Judges from dominant castes may turn a blind eye to the misconduct of their caste brethren, protecting them from scrutiny and accountability. This culture of impunity emboldens corrupt practices and erodes public trust in the judiciary.

Biased Judgments: Skewing Justice

The caste biases within the judiciary can also influence judgments, particularly in cases involving individuals from different castes. Studies have shown that marginalised communities often face discrimination in the judicial process, with their cases being treated less favorably than those of upper-caste individuals

This systemic bias undermines the very essence of justice, perpetuating inequality and reinforcing existing social hierarchies.

Historical Echoes: Casteism in the Words of Judges

Y.V. Chandrachud: A Legacy of Caste Preference

Abhinav Chandrachud, grandson of former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Y.V. Chandrachud, revealed in his book “Supreme Whispers” that his grandfather favoured Brahmin judges.

According to Abhinav, Justice Madon accused CJI Y.V. Chandrachud was seeking Brahmin judges in the Supreme Court. Justice Khalid also criticised Chandrachud’s preference towards Brahmins in 1988. This anecdote provides a glimpse into the historical biases that have plagued the Indian judiciary for decades.

Denial and Justification: Perpetuating the Problem

Despite overwhelming evidence, some judges continue to deny the existence of caste-based discrimination within the judiciary. Justice Pardiwala’s earlier statement, blaming reservation for India’s problems, exemplifies this denial.

They singled out reservations instead of acknowledging the systemic issue. Such statements not only ignore the systemic nature of casteism but also serve to justify the existing inequalities, hindering any meaningful progress towards a more inclusive and equitable system.

The Cost of Corruption: A Nation’s Decline

Transparency International: India’s Corruption Ranking

The pervasive corruption within India’s institutions, including the judiciary, takes a heavy toll on the nation’s progress. According to Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index, India ranks 93rd out of 180 countries.

This dismal ranking reflects the widespread perception of corruption and its detrimental impact on various aspects of Indian society.

The Judiciary Under Scrutiny: Complaints and Impunity

Between 2017 and 2021, the Indian judiciary received 1,631 complaints against judicial officers. However, due to the judiciary’s internal mechanisms for handling complaints, the actual number of convictions or disciplinary actions remains shrouded in secrecy. This lack of transparency and accountability further fuels public distrust and perpetuates the cycle of corruption.

The Erosion of Public Trust: A Dangerous Trend

When the judiciary, the very institution designed to uphold justice, is perceived as corrupt and biased, it undermines public trust and erodes the foundation of democracy. Citizens lose faith in the system’s ability to deliver fair and impartial justice, leading to disillusionment and a decline in civic engagement. This erosion of trust poses a significant threat to the rule of law and the overall well-being of Indian society.

Silencing Dissent: The Price of Speaking Out

Justice Karnan: A Case of Retaliation

The case of Justice C.S. Karnan serves as a chilling reminder of the consequences of challenging the status quo. In 2017, Justice Karnan, a Dalit judge of the Calcutta High Court, was sentenced to six months in prison for contempt of court after he accused 20 sitting judges of corruption and caste bias. His “crime” was to expose the rot within the system, and the judiciary responded with swift and decisive action to silence him.

A Message of Fear: Stifling Dissent

The harsh treatment of Justice Karnan sent a clear message to other judges: They will not tolerate dissent. By making an example of him, the judiciary effectively stifled any potential challenges to the existing power structures and reinforced the culture of silence surrounding corruption and casteism.

What Can Be Done?

The fight against corruption in the Indian judiciary requires a multi-pronged approach, focusing on systemic reforms and increased accountability.

• Promote Transparency: Implement measures to increase transparency in judicial appointments, complaint mechanisms, and asset declarations.
• Ensure Representation: Reform the collegium system to ensure fair representation of all castes and communities in the judiciary.
• Strengthen Accountability: Establish an independent body to investigate allegations of corruption against judges, with the power to impose meaningful sanctions.
• Raise Awareness: Educate the public about the issue of casteism in the judiciary and its impact on justice delivery. Share this article and other resources that highlight the issue of casteism in the judiciary. Start conversations with your friends, family, and colleagues to raise awareness about this critical issue
• Empower Marginalized Communities: Support initiatives that empower marginalized communities and provide them with access to legal education and representation. Support organizations and individuals working to challenge caste-based discrimination and promote social justice. Exercise Your Right to Vote: Vote for leaders who are committed to upholding the principles of equality and justice for all, regardless of caste.

It is only through sustained and collective efforts that India can hope to cleanse its judiciary of the stain of corruption and ensure true justice for all its citizens.

Disclaimer:

This article discusses complex topics with specific meanings within the context of the Indian judicial system and social structure. Here are some key terms and their definitions:

• Casteism: Discrimination and prejudice based on caste, a hierarchical social division in India.
• Reservation: A policy of affirmative action providing quotas for marginalized communities in education and employment.
• Collegium System: The system by which judges are appointed in India, comprising a group of senior judges.
• Upper Caste: Social groups traditionally considered higher in the caste hierarchy.
• Marginalized Communities: Groups historically disadvantaged and discriminated against based on caste or other social factors.
• Brahmin: The highest caste in the traditional Hindu social hierarchy.
• Scheduled Castes (SC): Officially recognized groups that have historically faced discrimination.
• Scheduled Tribes (ST): Officially recognized groups that have historically faced discrimination, typically indigenous communities.
• Other Backward Classes (OBC): Officially recognized groups that are socially and educationally disadvantaged.
• Chief Justice of India (CJI): The highest-ranking judge in the Supreme Court of India.
• High Court: The principal civil court of original jurisdiction in a state.
• Supreme Court: The highest judicial court and the final court of appeal under the Constitution of India.

Read more about the impact of recent Supreme Court Judgements on Bahujan.

Read more about the Caste System and the Supreme Court.

Supreme Whispers: Supreme Court Judges

In the 1980s, American scholar George H. Gadbois, Jr. conducted over 116 interviews with 66+ Indian Supreme Court judges (including 19 Chief Justices), capturing their candid views on colleagues, court politics, appointments, and government interactions. Based on Gadbois’s detailed notes, Abhinav Chandrachud’s book reveals the Supreme Court’s inner workings, politics, and legal culture during that decade, offering a rare glimpse into the judges’ secluded world.

Buy Now

Do you disagree with this article? If you have strong evidence to back up your claims, we invite you to join our live debates every Sunday, Tuesday, and Thursday on YouTube. Let’s engage in a respectful, evidence-based discussion to uncover the truth. Watch the latest debate on this topic below and share your perspective!