CJI says judiciary cannot earn public trust by shielding itself from scrutiny

The CJI's remarks touch upon the core principles of an independent judiciary within a constitutional democracy. The judiciary derives its legitimacy not from the ballot box, but from public trust in its fairness and adherence to the Constitution. The concept of judicial independence, enshrined in provisions like the security of tenure for judges (e.g., Article 124 and Article 217), is meant to protect judges from executive or legislative pressure, not to shield them from legitimate public scrutiny. The delicate balance lies between constructive criticism—which aids self-correction—and contempt of court (under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971), which seeks to prevent the lowering of the court's authority. The CJI highlighted that a transparent court must provide accessible reasoning for its judgments, enabling public scrutiny and fostering trust even among those who receive adverse rulings.

From a governance perspective, the focus is on institutional accountability and transparency. The principle 'justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done' is fundamental. Transparency in judicial proceedings—such as live-streaming of constitutional bench hearings or publishing reasoned judgments—is crucial for demonstrating fairness. A system that operates behind closed doors or provides rulings without clear justification breeds suspicion. The CJI argued that public confidence is built through the 'accumulated, ordinary experience' of the system over time, emphasizing that trust must be continuously renewed. The recent closure of suo motu proceedings (where the court acts on its own cognizance) regarding the textbook row illustrates the court navigating the tension between protecting its image and allowing for critical academic discourse.

This issue is highly relevant for GS Paper 4, focusing on public service ethics, probity in governance, and institutional integrity. The CJI's assertion that trust is earned when a losing party still believes the process was fair speaks to the ethical requirement of procedural justice. An institution that avoids scrutiny or suppresses criticism is viewed as lacking integrity. The ethical challenge for the judiciary is to remain robust enough to withstand fair critique while maintaining the decorum and authority necessary to enforce its judgments. The discussion underscores the value of transparency and accountability as foundational ethical principles for any public institution, especially one tasked with interpreting the law and dispensing justice.