In these turbulent times, when both the Legislature and Executive are mounting visible and subtle challenges to the judiciary’s independence, the higher judiciary of India must realize that every word uttered from the bench carries added weight and responsibility. When citizens’ fundamental rights are at risk, judicial restraint and focus on core legal reasoning are not just professional virtues—they are pillars holding up the last defence against possible State overreach.

India’sjudiciary is facing critical challenges across fronts. While the nation debates delays in court cases, loose remarks by judges, and ancient legal rituals, judges themselves point to a basic problem: the government is not always cooperating on appointments, transfers, and much-needed infrastructure, making justice slower and harder to deliver. As both a journalist for over three decades and legal advocate now watching these court rooms up close, I have seen how this tug-of-war affects not just lawyers and litigants, but the trust the public places in the courts.

Obiter Dicta: Why every word matters:

Judges are expected to deliver clear, reasoned judgments based on law and facts, known as “ratio decidendi.” Yet, remarks not strictly needed for the decision—“obiter dicta”—often grab headlines. When judges speak off-the-cuff, their words, intended for the moment, can become the subject of national debate. These comments bounce between television, WhatsApp groups, and public platforms, shaping views on judicial conduct and authority.

The CJI Gavai case:

The issue was highlighted recently when Chief Justice of India B R Gavai made an offhand comment in the Khajuraho idol case, which quickly became a social media storm. He later clarified that his remarks were not meant to disrespect anyone’s faith, but the episode showed just how quickly words from the bench can influence public opinion—sometimes well beyond their intended context. In today's climate, every remark by judges is instantly amplified, sometimes misunderstood, and cannot be easily erased.

Sanyal’s critique and citizens’ frustration:

At the same time, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s adviser Sanjeev Sanyal has openly criticised the judiciary for slow delivery of justice and outdated traditions. He argues that court holidays are far too long, and the courts cannot be “closed for months” like other public services. Sanyal also calls out complex judicial structures and formalities, such as the address “My Lord” as colonial leftovers that alienate ordinary people.

He claims that judicial delays and inefficiency are holding back India’s economic growth, with disputes remaining unresolved despite big investments in infrastructure. Sanyal’s “99-1 rule” points out that complex laws meant to target a small minority of rule-breakers end up hurting the law-abiding majority by making court proceedings tedious and unclear.

He also advocates reforms such as voluntary—not mandatory—mediation and says that technology and even AI can help modernize the system. For many citizens—and indeed many government ministries—these are fair demands, as slow legal processes often create business uncertainty and personal hardship.

Judges’ side: The government’s blockade:

Judges, however, have their own set of concerns, and they deserve serious attention. Many in the higher judiciary feel frustrated by a lack of cooperation from government authorities—especially in the appointment and transfer of judges. The slow response or deliberate stalling of judge appointments means rising vacancies, which worsens the already heavy caseload and delays justice for millions.

Judges also complain about poor court infrastructure. With courts operating in cramped spaces, lacking reliable technology, and struggling for basic staff support, even the best judgment cannot be delivered efficiently. In many cases, the government has not provided enough funds to build or upgrade courtrooms, making modern case management nearly impossible.

Adding to this, a trust deficit between the bureaucracy and judiciary creates further hurdles. Judges sometimes feel their recommendations or requests are dismissed by officials who do not value the courts’ role in upholding democracy and protecting citizen rights. Without genuine cooperation, even important decisions on appointments and resources can be left in limbo, weakening the functioning and reputation of the judiciary.

Obiter Dicta and judicial speech matter more now:

When the machinery of justice stutters, judges may become frustrated, and that can show up in courtroom remarks. Whether out of exasperation or genuine concern, loose words carry a greater risk than ever before.

As in recent controversies, judges who apologise or clarify may restore some trust, but those who blame the media or critics often make matters worse. In reality, courtroom remarks cannot be taken back once they are in the public domain. If the explanations are slow or defensive, questions about judicial responsibility, accountability and dignity only grow louder.

Loose comments also give ammunition to political leaders, business lobbies, and social critics who wish to challenge the judiciary’s authority or independence. In the current political climate, with both the Legislature and the Executive vying for influence, the judiciary must choose its words and actions with extra care.

Lessons for lasting reform:

Given this complex web of criticism, frustration, and public expectation, India’s judiciary needs to chart a clear, honest path forward.

Build on reasoned orders and clear judgments:All decisions—whether ground-level or the Supreme Court—should focus on facts and direct legal reasoning. Judges should avoid off-topic comments, opinions on politics, faith, or social issues unless these directly affect the case. Casual remarks, personal frustrations, or philosophical musings can and will be spread, debated, or misunderstood.

Push for true public service standards:Courts are public institutions meant to serve all citizens, not selective spaces for a privileged few. Like hospitals and police stations, which must remain accessible to respond to emergencies and public needs, courtrooms too should be open, efficient, and equipped to help everyone seeking justice. Judges, the government, and the bar must cooperate to modernize court administration, streamline holidays, and put citizen access at the forefront, ensuring that justice is not delayed because of outdated practices or limited availability.

Cooperate-not clash-with government authorities:Judges, ministries, and legal bodies must find better ways to work together on appointments, transfers, and infrastructure. If the trust deficit remains, both courts and citizens will suffer.

Embrace modernisation and technology:Both Sanyal and many legal scholars say digital case management, online hearings, and even AI-based legal support should become standard, not optional. Introducing these tools requires government support and funding.

Simplify outdated customs and structures:Legal jargon, formal titles, and rigid hierarchies should not turn courts into intimidating or inaccessible places. Reforms that make courts more welcoming and less formal will help build public trust.

Take accountability seriously:Mistakes happen. Judges who misspeak should clarify and apologize quickly. Blaming the press or the public undermines the dignity of the institution. The judiciary’s strength comes from humility and openness, not defensiveness.

Defend judicial independence actively:With growing outside pressure, judges must balance restraint and transparency. Every ruling, every public statement, and every reform effort should communicate that the judiciary is a fair, honest, and independent check on power.

The road ahead-Collaborate, reform, restore trust:

In these turbulent times, when both the Legislature and Executive are mounting visible and subtle challenges to the judiciary’s independence, the higher judiciary of India must realize that every word uttered from the bench carries added weight and responsibility. When citizens’ fundamental rights are at risk, judicial restraint and focus on core legal reasoning are not just professional virtues—they are pillars holding up the last defense against possible State overreach.

India's legal system is too important to be left stuck in old ways or new conflicts. The search for solutions must involve all players—judges, government officials, lawyers, civil society, and citizens. Judges’ words, actions, and decisions must build bridges, not barriers—between law and society, tradition and progress, State and citizen.

Public trust can be restored not through rhetoric or blame, but by showing the judiciary cares about both the letter and the spirit of justice. And the government must ensure that the courts have the people, tools, and spaces needed to do their job.

If both sides rise to the challenge, India’s judiciary will shine as an institution that protects rights, delivers justice fast, and speaks with the dignity and care that our democracy demands.

(The author is former Senior Editor, The Economic Times, and currently practising as an advocate at the Telangana High Court)