Part IV: A New Blueprint for Justice: Reimagining the Indian Judiciary

Understanding the colonial roots of our system’s failures is the necessary starting point for a radical and comprehensive overhaul.  We must have the courage to reimagine its very foundations, shifting its core logic from ruling subjects to serving citizens.  This blueprint offers a vision built upon five foundational pillars.

Pillar 1: Randomised Benches – To Ensure True Impartiality

To combat the reality and perception of "judge-shopping" and ideological predictability, we must make it impossible to know in advance which judges will hear a case. This requires a fundamental restructuring of how the Supreme Court is composed and how its benches are formed.

Expansion of the Supreme Court: The total strength of the Supreme Court of India should be increased from the current 34 to 45 justices. The mandatory retirement age for these justices should be raised from 65 to 72 years.

Randomised Panel Selection: For each case accepted for review, a bench of either 7 or 9 justices would be selected randomly, lottery-style, from the full pool of 45.

Application to Lower Courts: All High Courts and District Courts must adopt a similar blind and randomised system for assigning cases to judges.

Rationale for Expansion and Age Adjustment

This expansion is not arbitrary.  A larger court of 45 justices significantly increases the mathematical combinations for benches, making panel composition truly unpredictable.  It also increases the court's overall capacity to hear more cases, potentially reducing the massive backlog.  Raising the retirement age to 72 allows the nation to retain the wisdom and experience of seasoned jurists for a longer period, aligning it more closely with global standards for high courts.

Ensuring True Randomness and Transparency

To make this system robust and trustworthy, two additional clauses are essential:

1. Publicly Auditable Algorithm: The random selection process must be managed by a transparent, publicly auditable algorithm, not by an internal administrative process.  The source code for the algorithm should be open for public inspection to ensure there are no backdoors or biases.  The random draw for each case should be a public event, time-stamped, and recorded.
2. Post-Admission Selection: The random selection of the bench must occur only after the Supreme Court has decided to hear a case (i.e., after a petition has been admitted).  This prevents any possibility of litigants or lawyers trying to game the system by filing cases at a time when they believe a more favourable random draw might occur.

Outcome: These reforms combined would create a judiciary where decisions are seen as the result of legal arguments before a neutral panel, not the predetermined outcome of a bench's fixed composition.  It would sever the link between the litigant and the judge, enhancing the perception and reality of impartiality and restoring faith in the court as an institution.

Pillar 2: Merit-Based Peer Nomination – To Elevate Expertise over Politics

The current Collegium system is opaque and must be replaced with a transparent, merit-based process.

Weighted Voting System: Judicial nominations would arise from an internal voting system involving experienced judges. The President's role in the nomination stage would be removed.  Votes would be weighted to reflect experience:

• Sitting Supreme Court Justices: 5 points
• High Court Judges: 3-4 points
• Senior District Judges: 1 point

Outcome: This places the selection of judges in the hands of the judiciary itself, but broadly and transparently, prioritising peer-recognised competence.  This merit-based system would then be complemented by Pillar 3, which diffuses political influence in the confirmation process.

Pillar 3: Randomised Parliamentary Panels – To Diffuse Political Influence

Parliament's constitutional oversight role must be preserved but reformed to reduce hyper-partisanship.

Randomised Committee: For each nominee, a confirmation panel of one-third of sitting MPs would be randomly selected from both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.

Outcome: This would prevent coordinated party-line confirmations or blocks, shifting the focus of hearings back toward the nominee's qualifications.

Pillar 4: Fixed Terms and Integrity for Life – Ending Entrenchment and Ensuring Accountability

The current system of service until a fixed retirement age leads to long-term entrenchment.  It must be replaced with a system of fixed terms and robust safeguards.

Fixed 12-Year Term: All High Court and Supreme Court justices will serve a single, non-renewable 12-year  term.  Their tenure will end after 12 years or upon reaching the age of 72, whichever comes first.

Mandatory Cooling-Off Period: Upon retiring, all Supreme Court and High Court judges will be barred from accepting any government-appointed position for five years to eliminate any perception of a quid pro quo.

Mandatory Health and Cognitive Assessments: Beginning at age 65, all sitting judges must undergo confidential, regular health and cognitive assessments to ensure they possess the acuity necessary for their roles.

Outcome: These reforms ensure a regular infusion of new perspectives while protecting the judiciary's integrity from executive influence.

Pillar 5: A New Ecosystem of Accountability and Transparency

The judiciary is often seen as an opaque "old boys' club" with no accountability.  To place the citizen at its centre, we need a new ecosystem of robust accountability.  This must include a system of clear, proportional, and severe punishments to deter misconduct and restore public trust.  

The Reform:

Judicial Oversight Council of India (JOCI): Create a powerful, independent body, made of retired judges, ethicists, law professors, and respected citizens.  It will investigate ethical complaints against all judges, including those of the Supreme Court.

Public Disclosure: All judges must publicly disclose their financial assets and business interests annually.

Recusal Registry: A public database will list every time a judge recuses themselves from a case, with a mandatory written reason.

Mandatory Continuing Education: Every judge must complete regular training on new areas of law, technology (like AI and cybersecurity), and implicit bias.

Plain-Language Summaries: Every judgment from the High Courts and Supreme Court must be accompanied by a clear, simple summary in English and the local state language, making the law accessible to everyone.

Outcome: This pillar throws open the doors of the judiciary, replacing opacity with transparency and impunity with accountability, which is essential for rebuilding trust.

Investigation: The JOCI will be the sole independent body to receive and conduct thorough investigations into all allegations of misconduct, from ethical lapses to corruption, against any judge, including those of the Supreme Court.

To ensure that judicial accountability is swift, fair, and free from political interference, the Judicial Oversight Council of India (JOCI) will be empowered not just to investigate but also to adjudicate complaints and render appropriate and tiered sanctions and/or punishment.  These sanctions and punishments would include:

• Confidential admonishment
• Public reprimand
• Temporary suspension from judicial duties
• Monetary fines
• Forfeiture of Benefits
• Recovery of Ill-Got Gains
• Lifetime Ban from Government Positions
• Removal from Office

The following tiered system of sanctions or punishments is proposed:

Tier 1: For Proved Corruption and Gross Misconduct

This tier is for the most egregious offences, such as bribery, misuse of judicial power for personal gain, and the accumulation of disproportionate assets.  For these, the punishment must be absolute and uncompromising.  The JOCI will issue a formal and public recommendation for the judge's removal from office.

Removal from Office: A judge found guilty of corruption or gross misconduct must be immediately and involuntarily removed from their judicial position.

The Judicial Tribunal for Removal: The JOCI's recommendation for removal will not be sent to Parliament for a political impeachment process.  Instead, it will be sent to a special Judicial Tribunal convened within the Supreme Court.

Composition: This tribunal will consist of a panel of 5 senior-most justices from the full pool of 45, selected randomly (excluding any justice who may have a conflict of interest), 3 retired judges, and 3 law professors.

Function: The Tribunal will conduct a formal, trial-like hearing to review the JOCI's evidence, hear the case, and allow the accused judge a full opportunity to present a defence.

Final Decision: A binding decision to remove the judge from office will require a supermajority vote (e.g., 7 out of 11) from the Judicial Tribunal. This decision will be final.

Rationale: This reformed process removes the final decision on judicial integrity from the hands of political actors and places it within a quasi-judicial framework. It ensures that a judge is judged by a panel of their peers based on evidence and legal standards, not political expediency. This creates a credible and effective deterrent against corruption and misconduct, which is essential for rebuilding public trust.

Forfeiture of Benefits: All benefits, including pension and post-retirement perks like housing or staff, should be forfeited.  This removes the financial incentive for corruption.

Criminal Prosecution: The JOCI shall refer cases of proven misconduct for criminal prosecution.  The judge should be subject to a criminal trial as a common citizen.

Recovery of Illegally Obtained Gains: A thorough financial investigation must be conducted to identify all assets and benefits acquired through corrupt means. These assets should be seized and forfeited to the state.

Lifetime Ban from Government Positions: A judge removed for corruption must be permanently barred from holding any government or public-facing position, including appointments to tribunals or commissions, to eliminate the possibility of a quid pro quo.

Tier 2: For Lesser but Serious Misconduct

This tier addresses actions that undermine the integrity of the judiciary but do not rise to the level of criminal corruption, such as a serious conflict of interest or a pattern of biased rulings.

Compulsory Retirement: The JOCI could recommend compulsory retirement, stripping the judge of their position while potentially allowing for a reduced pension based on the severity of the offence.

Public Censure: A formal, public statement from the JOCI could condemn the judge's actions, serving as a powerful reputational deterrent.

Tier 3: For Minor Misconduct

This tier is for minor ethical lapses or procedural violations that do not severely impact the integrity of the judiciary.

Private Censure: A formal, but private, reprimand would be recorded for future reference.

Withholding of Promotions or Assignments: The judge could be temporarily or permanently overlooked for promotions or prestigious assignments.

Change in Jurisdiction: The judge could be transferred to a less sensitive or demanding judicial post.

Mandatory Training/Counselling: A judge could be required to undergo mandatory training on judicial ethics and conduct.

Additional Points for Pillar 5

A Fourth Branch of Government: Citizen Oversight Authority: Establish an independent constitutional body--a "Police of Police" (POP) or Civil Oversight Commission--with the power to investigate misconduct by police, prosecutors, and other public officials.  This body must be insulated from political interference and have its own authority to conduct audits and investigations.

A Mandatory Citizen Rights Charter: Every police station must be legally bound to display a "Citizen's Charter of Legal Rights" and inform citizens of their rights at every point of contact.

Time-bound Justice: The new laws must include strict, statutory deadlines for each stage of the legal process.  Cases delayed beyond these deadlines must trigger an automatic review and guaranteed state compensation.

Universal Legal Aid and Compensation: India must create a universal portal for legal aid and guarantee state compensation for wrongful arrest and custodial abuse.

Civic Re-education of Law Enforcement: Mandatory yearly training on constitutional duties and citizen dignity must be implemented for all officers.

 

From Subjects to Citizens—A New Republic of Justice

We began this journey by confronting a painful truth: a judicial system that, for the common citizen, often feels like an instrument of exhaustion rather than a pillar of justice.  We dissected its structure, witnessed its failures, and traced the DNA of this dysfunction back to its source: a colonial architecture of control, an operating system designed not for service but for subjugation.  We saw how this inherited mindset persists, rendering even modern reforms superficial.

From this unflinching diagnosis, we have laid out a comprehensive blueprint for a new judiciary.  This is not a proposal for minor repairs but for a fundamental reconstruction, built on the pillars of Randomised Benches, Merit-Based Peer Nomination, Randomised Parliamentary Panels, Fixed Terms and Integrity for Life, and a new Ecosystem of Accountability and Transparency.  It is a vision to transform our courts from intimidating fortresses into open sanctuaries of justice.

The choice before us is clear.  We can continue to apply cosmetic changes to a colonial relic, forever trapped by the logic of our former masters, or we can have the courage to build a system worthy of a free republic.  This is the difference between a system that treats people as subjects and one that empowers them as citizens; between a culture of fear and a culture of service; between justice as a privilege for the few and justice as an undeniable right for all.

This monumental task does not belong to judges and politicians alone.  It belongs to the people of India.  The Preamble of our Constitution begins with the words “We, the People.”  It is a declaration of mastery, not servitude.  Reclaiming our judiciary and demanding that it serves its true masters--the citizens--is the unfinished business of our independence.  Let us begin the work of building a system where the rule of law is finally, and truly, the rule of the people.

 

References

1. Austin, Granville. The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966.
2. Baidya, Ryan. "A New Law, but the Same Chains: the Colonial Mindset of India’s Legal System Persists." Global Governance New, July 2025.
3. Deshpande, V. S. The Indian Judiciary: A Miscellany. New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing, 2005.
4. Baxi, Upendra, ed. Law and Society in India. New Delhi: Indian Law Institute, 1982 (essays incl. Galanter on court displacement)
5. Department of Justice, Government of India. “The National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG),” updated Aug 19, 2025
6. Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs. Reply on implementation of BNS 2023 in Lok Sabha, Dec 3, 2024
7. Supreme Court Observer. “July 2025: Pendency soars to a staggering 87,000 cases,” Aug 14, 2025; and “80,221 cases pending… (Jan 2024),” Feb 3, 2024.
8. Bombay High Court. “History,” official page (re: 1823 Supreme Court of Bombay).
9. GKToday. “Act of 1800 and Establishment of Supreme Court of Madras,” Mar 21, 2016 (charter 1800; opening 1801).
10. India Justice Report 2025 (highlights on pendency crossing 5 crore by end‑2024).
11. Galanter, Marc. "The Displacement of Courts in the Indian Legal System." In The Law and Society in India, edited by Upendra Baxi, 115-40. New Delhi: Indian Law Institute, 1982.  
12. Patnaik, S. M. Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied: A Critique of the Indian Legal System. New Delhi: Allied Publishers, 2011.
13. Singh, Upinder. A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century. Pearson Education India, 2008.
14. Srivastava, A. K. Indian Judiciary and Justice: A Systemic Analysis. New Delhi: S. Chand & Co., 2018.