Why a Party Spokesperson’s Appointment as High Court Judge Should Worry All of Us

The appointment of former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson Aarti Sathe as a judge of the Bombay high court earlier this month has sparked controversy. Her transition from political advocate to judicial arbiter appears to have been too quick and raises an unsettling question: Is the judiciary still independent when political footprints are still fresh on the robes of its judges?

Perhaps, when viewed in isolation, Sathe’s appointment can be dismissed as an aberration. However, when viewed alongside other recent developments, a pattern emerges. A pattern that points towards the slow erosion of boundaries between an independent judiciary and politics.

This article draws from several other instances to make an assessment about the current situation of the judiciary and how it is being influenced by the government. 

Much before Sathe’s appointment, a troubling precedent was set in March 2020, when former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi was appointed to the Rajya Sabha. Justice Gogoi’s appointment came a mere four months after his retirement, giving the impression of a quid pro quo arrangement and casting doubts over several politically sensitive cases during his time – the Ayodhya verdict and the Rafale deal judgment –  that favoured the BJP government. In fact, a study published in the Federal Law Review found that since 1999, 70% of retired Supreme Court judges in India accepted various government positions. 

Perhaps, the line is thinning not just around appointments but with judicial reasoning itself. Take, for instance, the concerning judicial methodology employed by former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, when he said he “sat before the deity and told him he needs to find a solution” to the Ayodhya dispute. 

The statement reflects a profound departure from the secular and rational basis of constitutional adjudication. It is to say that divine intervention, rather than constitutional interpretation and legal precedent, guided one of the most significant judgments in India’s legal history. 

Instances of hate speech from sitting judges or controversial appointees have also raised questions about the direction in which the Indian judiciary is headed.

In 2023, the appointment of lawyer Victoria Gowri as a judge of the Madras high court caused public outrage. Gowri’s case was particularly controversial because of her history of alleged hate speech against religious minorities while serving as a BJP leader. She allegedly compared Islam to “green horror” and Christianity to “white fear”, evidence of which was available in the public domain during her selection as a judge. 

Similarly, in December 2024, Allahabad high court judge, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, used a communal slur against the Muslim community during a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event and stated that India’s culture rests on ‘cow, Gita and Ganga’.

Corruption scandals have also played their part in denting judicial credibility. Let us take a look at a recent incident from March 2025. This involved the alleged discovery of burnt currency notes at the residence of Delhi high court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, triggering a Supreme Court-led probe and a motion of impeachment against him. 

This incident sits beside other telling cases. Justice Soumitra Sen became the first judge to be impeached by the Rajya Sabha for misappropriating Rs 33 lakhs while serving as a court-appointed receiver. Or take the Justice P.D. Dinakaran case, where he resigned before the impeachment process over allegations against land grabbing and possessing assets disproportionate to his income. 

These incidents – whether political appointments, sectarian rhetoric or corruption – can individually be dismissed as exceptions, or at most, unfortunate embarrassments. However, when taken together, they map a troubling trajectory and establish that the judiciary is no longer immune to partisan influence and political temptations. 

However, paradoxically, public trust in the judiciary remains high despite these cases. Data from Lokniti-CSDS National Election Studies 2009 and 2019, and Lokniti-CSDS-Azim Premji University: Politics and Society between elections (2018) show that trust in the judiciary and Supreme Court has been sizeable. 

Over seven in ten surveyed Indian citizens trust the institution, and a similar proportion believe it is fair in adjudication (Table 1). In a country where public trust in institutions is often fragile, this faith is remarkable and refreshing. 

Table 1: Trust in the Supreme Court and Judiciary - 2009 to 2019

*Data taken from the National Election Study 2019 and 2009

*Data taken from Azim Premji-Lokniti study 2016-2019

Note: All figures in percent. Rest did not respond.

However, it also raises the possibility that public confidence is lagging behind institutional reality. The lack of more recent data leaves us guessing whether this trust has endured or if cracks are beginning to show. 

If the status quo is not challenged, India risks a judiciary that is not just perceived as compromised but actually functions with a compromised independence. A decade ago, the idea of a judge openly embracing sectarian rhetoric or a retired judge joining politics within a month of retirement would have been shocking. But now, they are a growing list of ‘exceptions’ painting a new normal. The risk is not purely academic, but exceptionally palpable and real. 

Courts are the last guardrails when other institutions falter. If the public begins to believe that judgments are politically influenced, even honest verdicts will be met with suspicion. And once suspicion takes root, judicial credibility will take generations to rebuild. 

Soumya Arora is a Researcher at Lokniti-CSDS and Devesh Kumar is a Research Associate at Lokniti-CSDS. Views expressed here are personal.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.