The bench’s remarks came while hearing a matter that required scrutiny of judicial conduct rather than the merits of a single dispute. Justice Kant noted that while the overwhelming majority of judges discharge their duties with integrity, there have been instances where last-minute orders raise questions about motive, timing and beneficiary impact. Such actions, the bench said, risk undermining the credibility painstakingly built by the institution over decades.
According to the court, the concern is not limited to one court or one jurisdiction. Patterns observed across different levels of the judiciary point to a broader governance challenge, particularly when discretionary powers are exercised without transparent reasoning. Justice Kant emphasised that judicial independence cannot be a shield for impropriety and that independence and accountability must operate in tandem.
Senior members of the Bar present during the hearing were seen acknowledging the gravity of the court’s comments. Several advocates later said the observations reflect a long-standing unease within the legal fraternity about the absence of institutional checks once a judge approaches the end of service. While impeachment remains the constitutional remedy for proven misconduct, it is widely regarded as politically fraught and practically unworkable, resulting in a gap between allegation and consequence.
The issue of judges’ conduct in the twilight of their careers has surfaced intermittently over the years, often triggered by controversial orders passed days or weeks before retirement. Legal scholars point out that such rulings may include granting interim reliefs, staying investigations, or issuing directions with far-reaching administrative or financial implications. Even when legally defensible, the timing of these decisions tends to invite suspicion, particularly if they depart from established judicial trends.
Justice Kant underscored that the judiciary’s moral authority flows from public trust, not merely constitutional text. Any perception that orders can be influenced by post-retirement prospects, personal considerations or external inducements strikes at the heart of that trust. The bench stressed that judges must remain conscious of how their actions are perceived, especially at a time when institutions face heightened public scrutiny.
The remarks also bring renewed focus on post-retirement appointments of judges to tribunals, commissions and other statutory bodies. Critics have argued that the prospect of such assignments can create a conflict of interest, whether real or perceived. Supporters of the existing system counter that experienced judges add value to quasi-judicial bodies and that appointments follow established procedures. The court’s comments suggest that perception itself is a critical factor, regardless of intent.
Within judicial circles, the discussion has extended to possible reforms. Proposals include clearer cooling-off periods before retired judges accept government-linked roles, stronger in-house mechanisms for peer review, and greater transparency in listing and disposing of sensitive matters close to retirement. The judiciary already operates an in-house procedure to examine complaints against judges, but its opaque nature has often drawn criticism for lacking public accountability.
Former judges and constitutional experts have offered mixed reactions. Some view the bench’s candour as a necessary course correction, signalling that the institution is willing to introspect publicly. Others caution that broad remarks, if not followed by concrete action, could fuel cynicism and be misused to question bona fide decisions. They argue that safeguards must be systemic rather than reliant on individual vigilance.
The executive and legislature have traditionally maintained that judicial reform must originate within the judiciary to preserve the separation of powers. Against that backdrop, the Supreme Court’s own articulation of the problem carries particular weight. It places responsibility squarely on the institution to demonstrate that it can police itself effectively without external interference.