Supreme Court judge Justice B V Nagarathna used a judicial officers’ conference in Bengaluru on Saturday to deliver an unusually blunt message on integrity, saying judges who cannot live within their known sources of income and fall prey to greed and temptation should be removed from the system, a remark that lands at a sensitive moment for debates over judicial accountability, public trust and the future shape of the higher judiciary.
Justice Nagarathna made the statement while addressing the 22nd Biennial State Level Conference of Judicial Officers in Karnataka, where the wider discussion centred on “Reimagining the Judiciary in the Era of Artificial Intelligence”. Reports of the speech said she linked ethical conduct to the legitimacy of courts, while also cautioning judicial officers against external influence and pressure from colleagues. The setting mattered: the conference brought together members of the district judiciary at a time when courts across the country are grappling with heavier caseloads, technological transition and rising public scrutiny of judicial behaviour.
Her remarks were pointed not only because of their wording but also because of her place in the judicial hierarchy. According to the Supreme Court’s official profile, Justice Nagarathna was elevated to the apex court on 31 August 2021. Under the seniority convention, she is widely expected to become the first woman Chief Justice of India in September 2027, although her tenure would be brief before retirement in October that year. That trajectory has made her a prominent figure in discussions on representation in the judiciary, as well as on the institutional culture that would greet the first woman to hold the country’s top judicial office.
The force of the intervention lies in how plainly it addressed a question the judiciary often handles with restraint in public. Indian courts have long defended judicial independence as essential to the constitutional order, but independence also depends on confidence that judges are free of improper financial motives and private influence. Justice Nagarathna’s formulation suggested that better pay and allowances cannot by themselves settle the issue of integrity; they may reduce vulnerability, but they do not erase the need for personal discipline, internal accountability and a willingness to remove compromised officers.
That balance between independence and accountability has sharpened as the judiciary enters a period of rapid administrative and technological change. At the same Bengaluru gathering, senior judicial and political figures spoke about the growing role of artificial intelligence and digital systems in court administration, while stressing that technology cannot replace human conscience or judicial reasoning. Within that conversation, Justice Nagarathna’s warning served as a reminder that the central challenge for courts remains human, not merely technical. Faster systems and smarter tools may help with efficiency, but they do not resolve the harder question of how to preserve integrity at every tier of the bench.
Her comments also drew attention to the district judiciary, which forms the first point of contact for most litigants and carries much of the justice system’s daily burden. District judges and trial courts are where questions of delay, pressure, infrastructure and public confidence are felt most sharply. The Supreme Court itself only days earlier warned High Courts against demoralising trial judges through disparaging observations, underlining the need to protect and strengthen the lower judiciary even while demanding high standards from it. Justice Nagarathna’s speech appeared to fit that broader line: defend honest judges, improve conditions, but act firmly against those who abuse office.
There is also a gender dimension to the moment. Commentary on the Supreme Court’s composition has repeatedly noted how few women have served on the court since independence, and how symbolic Justice Nagarathna’s projected elevation would be. Yet the significance of her intervention lies less in symbolism than in substance. By choosing judicial ethics, self-restraint and institutional courage as her theme, she placed the conversation on standards rather than identity, suggesting that a milestone appointment will carry weight only if it is matched by a credible insistence on probity across the system.
