No smoke without fire: India’s judiciary in 2025

On March 14, 2025, a blaze at the official residence of then Delhi High Court Justice Yashwant Varma caused India’s higher judiciary to come under fire. Images and videos of burning cash recovered from the site were symbolic of the public's eroding trust in the courts.

The fire may have been doused that evening, but its smoke continues to hang in the air. Much like Delhi’s infamous PM10 and PM 2.5.

However, 2025 didn’t see the judiciary fighting just one fire. It moved from one controversy to another right until the end of the year. Here, we look at the judiciary’s most controversial moments of the year.

After his transfer from the Allahabad High Court in October 2021, Justice Varma established a distinct presence in Delhi by delivering verdicts of seminal importance. He did not shy away from writing judgments that were lengthy and often complex in their drafting. Ironically, he now finds himself at the centre of a verdict that is equally lengthy and complex, but this time, he is not the author.

A three-member committee constituted by Lok Sabha Speaker under the Judges (Inquiry) Act is probing the allegations relating to the discovery of cash at Justice Varma’s residence. On the other hand, Justice Varma has moved the Supreme Court alleging irregularity in the initiation of the impeachment proceedings and the constitution of the probe panel.

Politicians are often seen being hit with shoes by angry members of the public. For a judge to face something similar in his own courtroom, however, is a rarity. 

Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai experienced just that when a lawyer, emboldened by right-wing rhetoric, threw a shoe towards him in the Supreme Court’s first courtroom. The attack was reportedly in reaction to an oral remark attributed to CJI Gavai during a case seeking the restoration of a seven-foot idol of Lord Vishnu at Khajuraho.

CJI Gavai showed magnanimity by choosing not to act against the lawyer. Unlike his predecessor, CJI Gavai may not have been worried about the legacy he would leave after retirement. Yet, given that two trial court judges faced similar shoe attacks weeks later, he might have considered whether a non-personal and institutional response was needed to deter such brazen acts inside India's apex court.

Just days after the shoe-throwing incident, a CJI Gavai-led Bench permitted so-called green firecrackers to be burst in the National Capital Region (NCR) during Diwali, departing from the strict stance adopted by the Court in view of the capital region's abysmal air quality. Beyond the legal arguments lay the unmistakable rhetoric around the right to celebrate a religious festivity at any cost. Yet, the Court proceeded to allow the fireworks. The burden today continues to be borne by the city’s lungs.

Since then, Delhi's air quality has continued to remain abysmal (it occasionally improves to poor). Of course, there are multiple factors at play and the Supreme Court's changing stance on firecrackers is not the sole cause. What remained troubling, however, was that despite a situation demanding urgent intervention, the Supreme Court did not make the air pollution case a priority for weeks.

What magic wand can a judicial forum exercise? CJI Surya Kant asked recently. The answer was perhaps obscured in the polluted air itself - where do citizens turn when neither the executive appears unwilling to act?

Transfers are said to be incidental to service, or so we are told. 2025 saw a series of transfers of High Court judges across India. In all, 6 Chief Justices and 41 judges were transferred. While some moves were routine, others remained shrouded in mystery. 

Much like the rest of the national capital, the Delhi High Court now has the privilege of outside talent. 10 of its judges including the Chief Justice come from different parts of the country. An anguished Bar circulated many representations in protest, yet no one told us why a judge from the Rajasthan High Court was sent back within weeks of his arrival in Delhi. Perhaps, a different kind of fire was at play.

Similar is the case with the out-of-turn elevation of Gujarat High Court Justice Vipul Pancholi to the Supreme Court, where there was no dearth of Gujarati talent on the Bench. Justice BV Nagarathna had opposed the move, but the Central government wasted no time to approve the Collegium recommendation. Justice Pancholi is slated to become CJI in October 2031.

Calcutta High Court Justice Joymalya Bagchi was elevated to the Supreme Court, superseding several senior judges across High Courts. The Collegium explicitly justified the recommendation on the ground that Justice Bagchi would assume office as CJI in 2031, noting that no judge from the Calcutta High Court has held the position since the retirement of Justice Altamas Kabir in 2013.

In an unprecedented development, 13 Allahabad High Court judges in August signed a letter urging their Chief Justice to defy the Supreme Court's directions to strip Justice Prashant Kumar of the criminal roster until his retirement and make him sit in a Division Bench with a seasoned senior judge.

The direction had been issued by a Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan following Justice Kumar’s observation that criminal prosecution could be used as an alternative means to recover money in civil disputes. 

Seeing the judiciary on a warpath, CJI Gavai shot an unusual letter to the aforementioned Bench for modification of a judicial order. The Justice Pardiwala-led Bench recalled the roster change direction but not without stating that the High Courts are not "separate islands” of the Indian judiciary.

Following a complaint, Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu in May withdrew a case from a judge who had already reserved his decision after hearing it at warp speed. Withdrawal of case from a judge at such a stage is rare and even unheard of. While the complaint did not say anything specific, it is not clear as to why it was serious enough to lead to the withdrawal of the case and not warrant further investigation.

The plea at hand sought quashing of a money laundering case involving a trial judge and certain businessmen who had allegedly paid bribes to the judicial officer. Since 2023, the case had already seen at least five judge changes due to recusals and roster adjustments before landing before Chief Justice Nagu.

After hinting at bench hunting in the matter and deciding to hear it himself, Justice Nagu also ultimately recused himself from the case, not before turning down the accused businessman’s request to withdraw the plea. Last heard, the plea seeking withdrawal of the High Court petition was before the Supreme Court.

A battery of lawyers including who's who of the Bar from Chandigarh to Delhi appeared in the matter. The bench hunting suspicion also put them under the spotlight. The Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana initiated an inquiry after the media reported Chief Justice Nagu’s searing observations against advocates appearing in the case. The lawyers' body, however, later exonerated all and blamed the media for misrepresenting the proceedings since there existed no judicial record of Justice Nagu’s suspicions. Much ado about nothing or a controversy swept under the rug?

Rightly or wrongly, judges continued to wield the power of contempt of court with full rigour in 2025, often responding sternly to criticism, misconduct and perceived attacks on the institution.

In April, the Allahabad High Court sentenced an advocate to six months' imprisonment for using abusive language against judges, including referring to them as "goondas."

The same month, the Bombay High Court sentenced a woman to one week in jail after she circulated a notice accusing High Court and Supreme Court judges of being part of a “dog mafia.” The decision was later criticised and set aside by the apex court.

A Delhi trial court also cracked down on misconduct after an accused threatened a woman judge during proceedings, telling her, “Tu hai kya cheez… tu bahar mil dekhte hai kaise zinda ghar jaati hai” (Who even are you… meet me outside and let’s see how you make it back home alive). The accused’s lawyer was also proceeded against for allegedly harassing the judge.

In May, the Allahabad High Court ordered initiation of contempt of court proceedings against a lawyer for calling a judge biased and dishonest during the hearing of a bail plea.

The Supreme Court too initiated a suo motu contempt of court case against Chandigarh-based journalist and YouTuber Ajay Shukla for scandalous remarks against a judge. Shukla apparently had posted a video on the retirement of Justice Bela M Trivedi and referred to her as 'Godi judge', a term used to refer to people or institutions perceived to be aligned with the Central government.

Contempt proceedings were also initiated against a senior advocate of the Gujarat High Court after he was spotted sipping beer during a virtual court hearing. The proceedings were later dropped after an apology, with no punishment imposed. However, a man who appeared before the High Court from a toilet did not receive similar leniency; he was ordered to do community service and pay a fine of ₹1 lakh.

In July, the Kerala High Court initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against a former CPI(M) MLA over his statement that the judiciary was aligned with the Sangh Parivar - the network of organizations affiliated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

In October, the Jharkhand High Court registered a suo motu criminal contempt case against an advocate who told a judge not to cross limits and humiliate lawyers appearing before him.

Around the same time, the Allahabad High Court framed charges under Contempt of Courts Act against a man for a WhatsApp message accusing a judicial officer of taking bribes and fabricating order sheets in certain cases.

Most recently, the Delhi High Court issued bailable warrants against a litigant alleged to have made scandalous and derogatory remarks against a district judge, after he failed to physically appear before it and said that he would not be facing "stupid proceedings" against him.

Supreme Court Justice Bela M Trivedi was not only unpopular for her hard stance on matters of personal liberty, but was also disliked by many lawyers. 

In her final months on the bench, she repeatedly censured and took stern action against advocates over alleged misconduct, even ordering a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe in a case where a petition was allegedly filed without the petitioner’s authorisation. She even passed a ruling to restrict the recording of lawyers’ appearance in court proceedings.

In the end, she had to advance her last working day at the top court. The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) decided not to hold any farewell in her honour. The Bar maintained its position despite other Supreme Court judges and the Bar Council of India Chairman coming out in open support of the retiring judge.

After Justice Varma, Justice GR Swaminathan became the second judge in 2025 to face the prospect of impeachment. Over 100 parliamentarians from the opposition bloc this month moved a motion seeking the impeachment of the Madras High Court judge. The allegations ranged from ideological bias to favouring advocates from a particular community. 

Many linked the move to Justice Swaminathan's recent order permitting devotees to light the Karthigai Deepam lamp on the deepathoon (stone lamp pillar) atop the Thirupparankundram hillock, which is near a Dargah. However, the opposition is reported to have also cited Justice Swaminathan’s public conduct and speeches, including the alleged use of a disrespectful term for Hindus who convert to Christianity. 

It remains to be seen whether the impeachment motion would proceed any further or fade away like the one moved last year against Allahabad High Court judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav.

These cases are not isolated instances. Many judges now reveal more of their ideological leanings than their judicial acumen. Some do so through public remarks, others through barely balanced verdicts. In January, two sitting judges of the Karnataka High Court addressed a convention where they spoke at length on the virtues of Brahmins.