From Impeachments to Attacks: Judiciary's 2025 Review - 2026-01-02

From Impeachments to Attacks: A Turbulent 2025 for the Indian Judiciary

In a year that echoed Charles Dickens' famous dichotomy, 2025 proved to be both the "best of times" and the "worst of times" for India's judiciary. Marked by groundbreaking constitutional interventions, such as the unprecedented use of Article 142 to enact laws, and overshadowed by scandals like the accidental discovery of unaccounted cash at a judge's residence leading to impeachment motions, the year exposed deep fissures in judicial integrity and independence. Attacks on the Chief Justice of India (CJI), controversies surrounding the collegium system, and a slew of high-profile rulings—from gubernatorial vetoes to stray dog relocations—dominated headlines. As legal professionals navigate these events, recent developments in High Court appointments and insolvency rulings offer glimmers of stability. This review dissects the year's key moments, their legal ramifications, and their enduring impact on the justice system.

The Cash Scandal and Impeachment Saga: A Blow to Judicial Credibility

The year began with a shocking incident that reverberated through the legal fraternity: the discovery of piles of burnt currency notes at the official residence of Delhi High Court Judge Justice Yashwant Varma during a fire in March 2025. What started as a routine emergency response by the fire brigade unearthed allegations of unaccounted cash, triggering the Supreme Court's in-house inquiry procedure as outlined in the landmark 1995 case C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee . Then-CJI Sanjiv Khanna swiftly initiated the process, with the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court submitting a report that found prima facie evidence against Justice Varma.

In an unprecedented display of transparency, the Supreme Court not only accepted the inquiry report but also uploaded videos and photos of the incident on its website. Judicial work was immediately withdrawn from Justice Varma, who was transferred back to his parent Allahabad High Court. A three-member committee further corroborated the findings, leading CJI Khanna to urge Justice Varma to resign or retire—a request he rebuffed. This escalated to recommendations for impeachment proceedings, with motions introduced in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha in July 2025.

Justice Varma challenged the in-house procedure before the Supreme Court, arguing procedural infirmities. However, a bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih dismissed the petition in August, observing: "The bench said the petition can't be entertained because Justice Varma had participated in the in-house procedure, and later, when he got an unfavourable outcome, he questioned the procedure's sanctity." The bench cautioned against publicizing sensitive evidence, noting it could prejudice ongoing inquiries. Subsequently, the Lok Sabha Speaker admitted the motion and constituted a three-member committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968—a move Justice Varma contested again, claiming the Act requires joint action from both Houses. Notice was issued, leaving the matter pending.

This saga raised profound questions about judicial accountability. For legal practitioners, it underscores the robustness of in-house mechanisms but highlights gaps in the 1968 Act, particularly unilateral committee formation, potentially setting precedents for future high-stakes inquiries.

Controversial Rulings: Justice JB Pardiwala and the Limits of Judicial Activism

Justice JB Pardiwala emerged as a lightning rod for debate, with his decisions often treading the line between bold activism and overreach. In April 2025, a bench of Justices Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan ruled on the Tamil Nadu Governor's withholding of assent to 10 bills, the oldest pending since January 2020. Deeming the Governor's actions "illegal and erroneous," the bench invoked Article 142 to declare the bills assented, marking the first time laws were enacted this way without gubernatorial approval. It held: "It held that Bills are deemed assented to, and for the first time in history, 10 Bills became law using Article 142 of the Constitution." The ruling imposed timelines on Governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201, rejecting any "pocket veto."

Criticism was swift, with Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar labeling Article 142 a "nuclear missile" against democratic institutions. In July, Justice Pardiwala's suo motu cognizance of a news report on stray dog attacks in Delhi led to drastic orders for immediate relocation of all strays in NCR to shelters, with penal action against obstructors. The bench rhetorically questioned animal lovers' priorities amid child rabies deaths. However, CJI B.R. Gavai transferred the matter to a three-judge bench the next day, staying the orders and mandating sterilization and release—emphasizing humane, evidence-based approaches under animal welfare laws.

Another flashpoint involved an August order directing Allahabad High Court Judge Prashant Kumar to sit with a senior and barring him from criminal matters for refusing a case in favor of civil remedies. Four days later, the bench recalled it at CJI Gavai's behest, amid protests from 13 Allahabad High Court judges urging non-implementation. These episodes illustrate the tensions between single-judge activism and institutional hierarchy, prompting lawyers to scrutinize judicial discretion in public interest litigation.

Presidential Reference: Overruling Deemed Assent and Reinforcing Constitutional Balance

The Tamil Nadu ruling's ripples led President Droupadi Murmu to invoke Article 143 in May 2025, seeking the Supreme Court's advisory opinion on 14 questions, including the judiciary's power to impose timelines absent constitutional provisions. After 10 days of hearings, a five-judge bench led by CJI Gavai opined in November that no "deemed assent" exists under Article 200, effectively overruling the two-judge bench's directions as non-binding obiter. The Court clarified Governors' discretion to reserve re-enacted bills for the President and stressed it was not an appellate body over executive actions.

This reference, the first major one in years, reaffirmed the separation of powers while cautioning against judicial encroachments. For constitutional lawyers, it provides clarity on federal dynamics, potentially curbing future Article 142 invocations in legislative matters and influencing state-center relations in bill assents.

Collegium Under Fire: Nepotism, Dissent, and Transparency Lapses

The Supreme Court Collegium faced intense scrutiny in 2025, particularly under CJI Gavai. Reports of recommending his nephew for the Bombay High Court, cleared swiftly by the government, fueled nepotism allegations—especially as the recommending Bombay Chief Justice was elevated to the Supreme Court shortly after. The collegium's nod to Justice Vipul Pancholi omitted Justice B.V. Nagarathna's dissent, who argued it was "counter-productive" given existing Gujarat representation and his prior transfer to Patna. CJI Gavai later dismissed her views pre-retirement.

Justice Atul Sreedharan's transfer was also countermanded amid government reconsideration, raising questions of executive influence. These incidents eroded trust in the collegium's opacity, contrasting with the Second Judges Case's emphasis on judicial primacy. Legal scholars argue for mandatory disclosure of dissents to enhance accountability without legislative interference.

Attacks on the Judiciary: Undignified Assaults and Their Repercussions

2025 witnessed unprecedented attacks on judicial offices. BJP MP Nishikant Dubey blamed then-CJI Khanna for "inciting religious wars," while VP Dhankhar asserted parliamentary supremacy. Social media amplified misinformation, culminating in advocate Rakesh Kishore hurling a shoe at CJI Gavai during a hearing on a temple idol petition, shouting against perceived disrespect to Sanatan Dharma. The incident drew condemnations from PM Narendra Modi, Rahul Gandhi, and bar associations, with the Bar Council of India suspending Kishore.

Similar defamatory campaigns targeted Madras High Court Justice G.R. Swaminathan over a temple lamp order, prompting impeachment motions and a pending Supreme Court PIL. The Court dismissed such rhetoric as unable to "shake public confidence," but these events highlight vulnerabilities, urging stronger contempt enforcement under Article 129.

Recent Judicial Appointments and Insolvency Developments: Signs of Continuity

As 2025 closed, the Central Government notified key High Court changes on January 1, 2026, acting on the Collegium's December recommendations. Justice Soumen Sen transfers from Meghalaya to Kerala High Court post-January 9 retirement; Justice Revati P. Mohite Dere (Bombay HC) assumes Meghalaya's helm; Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo (Orissa HC) elevates to Patna Chief Justice. Pending: Justices Manoj Kumar Gupta (Uttarakhand), M.S. Sonak (Jharkhand), and A. Muhamed Mustaque (Sikkim). These moves ensure leadership continuity amid prior turmoil.

In insolvency, NCLT Ahmedabad ruled liquidators cannot claim fees on SARFAESI realizations outside the liquidation estate, protecting secured creditors. Kolkata NCLT barred non-participating bidders from challenging resolution plans post-restoration, emphasizing locus standi. Mumbai NCLT affirmed single resolution professionals for group companies absent conflicts, streamlining IBC processes. Gujarat AAR exempted charitable trusts' tree plantation in non-forest areas from GST, promoting environmental initiatives. Tamil Nadu extended 100% EV road tax exemptions till 2027, aligning with green policies.

Legal Implications: Balancing Innovation and Integrity

These events carry weighty implications. The impeachment saga tests the 1968 Act's efficacy, potentially leading to amendments for smoother processes. Overrulings like the presidential reference delimit judicial timelines, favoring interpretive restraint. Collegium lapses may spur transparency reforms, such as public resolutions, to counter executive leverage. NCLT rulings clarify IBC's creditor-liquidator divide, reducing disputes in corporate rescues.

For the justice system, 2025's "winter of despair" risks public disillusionment, yet milestones like Article 143 advice affirm resilience. Judicial policing—e.g., remarks on Rahul Gandhi or Rohingya refugees—raises bias concerns, urging adherence to R.K. Anand standards.

Impact on Legal Practice and the Justice System

Practitioners face a transformed landscape: Constitutional litigators must navigate stricter federal boundaries, while insolvency lawyers gain from RP flexibility and bidder restrictions, potentially accelerating resolutions under SARFAESI-IBC interplay. Bar associations, via SCBA and BCI, must bolster defenses against attacks, possibly through proactive PILs for judicial protection protocols.

Broader impacts include heightened scrutiny on elevations, deterring qualified candidates and delaying justice delivery. Yet, appointments signal recovery, and exemptions like GST for eco-trusts encourage pro-bono environmental lawyering. Ultimately, 2025 compels the fraternity to advocate reforms—perhaps a judicial standards commission—to safeguard independence.

Conclusion: Toward a Spring of Hope

2025 left indelible scars on India's judiciary, from impeachment trials to shoe-throwing assaults, but also forged paths like innovative assents and advisory clarity. As new Chief Justices take reins, the legal community must prioritize transparency and unity to restore faith. In Dickens' words, may the new year herald a "spring of hope," ensuring the judiciary's pivotal role in democracy endures.

(Word count: 1,478)