Back
Retiring Judges Defend Amid Impeachment and Controversies
In a remarkable confluence of events underscoring the delicate balance of judicial integrity, independence, and public scrutiny, several prominent Indian judges have used their farewell platforms and bench pronouncements to address simmering controversies. Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav retired on , amid a pending parliamentary impeachment motion triggered by his 2024 speech at a event—only for the motion to lapse with his superannuation. Justice Rajesh Bindal, demitting office the same day, critiqued how judicial independence is measured by case outcomes rather than legal fidelity. Meanwhile, an bench lambasted false FIRs under the , hinting at investigative pressures. Former Justice Abhay S. Oka weighed in on post-retirement restraints at an event. These developments, rich with quotes and context, offer legal professionals profound insights into ethics, enforcement, and institutional resilience.
Justice Yadav's Contentious Farewell: No Fault, But 'Twisted' Words
Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav's retirement address at the 's Full Court reference was a defiant defense against the storm over his speech. Organized by the VHP's legal cell in Prayagraj, the event drew ire for remarks implying India's governance aligns with the majority's ("bahusankhyak") wishes and questioning tolerance among children of a certain faith due to cultural practices like animal slaughter. The controversy escalated when then-Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna summoned him for an explanation, culminating in an impeachment motion.
Yadav categorically rejected blame:
"Mera koi dosh nahi tha. Tod marod ke pesh karne walon ka tha"
[
"I had no fault. It was the fault of those who twisted and presented it"
]. He credited the bar's support during the ordeal:
"Another phase came, in which I had no fault, and during that, I got your support. Had I not received it, I would have broken."
With retirement, the impeachment—applicable only to sitting judges—stands nullified, closing a rare chapter in judicial accountability.
Beyond defense, Yadav emphasized his impartiality:
"You are lawyers of every caste here; no person can say that I discriminated while delivering justice. I never differentiated between small or big lawyers, or lawyers of any caste."
His speech pivoted to mentorship, urging humility:
"A judge is not a police inspector (daroga)...Everyone should learn to be humble, regardless of whether they are a senior, a judge or a junior."
He advised juniors on demeanor's role—
"even if the case is weak, the judge elevates it"
—lamented lapses like not standing for seniors, welcomed rising women lawyers but pushed them to argue independently, and shared humble origins riding a bicycle post-bar enrollment. Concluding with gratitude, he affirmed:
"I have never found the kind of love anywhere else...You only get what you give."
This farewell not only personalizes judicial trials but reinforces impeachment thresholds, rarely invoked successfully.
Bindal on the Myth of 'Independent' Judges
Echoing sentiments from former colleague Justice Ajay Rastogi, retiring
Justice Rajesh Bindal challenged outcome-based perceptions of independence. At his
Bar Association farewell, Bindal stated:
"We all decide as per law only. The only problem is if somebody wins he says 'I have full faith (in judiciary)' but if somebody loses he says 'the courts are wrong'. We are regularly seeing this only because the litigation is high stakes."
Chief Justice Surya Kant lauded Bindal's pan-India exposure—from to SC—and contributions like digitizing postmortem reports (now national), forensic integration, and record management aiding COVID-era hearings and proceedings. Landmark rulings highlighted included rejecting child-as-property in custody battles, direct bank transfers for motor accident compensation, and equality for public figures.
Bindal advocated a "clean slate" for cases, urged lawyers to assist correct conclusions over "winning," and cautioned against public airing of issues:
"No institution is perfect...sort out in house only...Our Chief never says no."
He warned on AI misuse in citations, stressing professional integrity. His words resonate amid debates on judicial populism, aligning with Rastogi's critique of "independence" as anti-government rulings only.
Cracking Down on False Anti-Conversion FIRs
In a April ruling, Justices Abdul Moin and Pramod Kumar Srivastava condemned a "disturbing trend" of third-party FIRs under the 2021 UP Act, mirroring observations in Rajendra Bihari Lal vs State of U.P. [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1021]. Hearing Mohd. Faizan's quashing petition over a Bahraich FIR alleging enticement of an 18-year-old for conversion/marriage, the bench noted her statement affirming a three-year consensual relationship, denying force, and fearing Hindu group harassment.
Despite this, the IO dropped only rape (
) but pursued kidnapping, assault, and conversion charges—a
"peculiar turn."
The court observed:
"
, it emerges that the Investigating Officer is acting under pressure or is 'persuaded' by some other factors."
It summoned the complainant, directed Additional Chief Secretary (Home) affidavit by
on baseless cases, stayed arrests, and ordered security. This intervention signals judicial intolerance for misuse, potentially spurring state reforms.
Oka's Call for Post-Retirement Restraint
Former SC Justice Abhay S. Oka, at an
event on "robes cannot be rented," declared:
"If as a sitting judge, I was invited by
...I would have politely said no, because my belief was
does have political inclinations."
Post-retirement, he urged "certain restraints," relevant amid Arvind Kejriwal's recusal bid against
's Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma over similar events.
Oka defended nuanced opinions, like Justice Deepak Verma's in Nirav Modi's UK extradition: assurances as "diplomatic promise" not legally binding.
"We must objectively examine whether the retired judge has said something which is absolutely wrong,"
he said, calling for systemic reforms to preempt foreign court criticisms.
Legal Ramifications and Practice Insights
These episodes illuminate fault lines: Impeachments, though nullified here, deter speech but affirm constitutional protections under and . The HC's FIR critique amplifies SC warnings, pressuring UP to curb vigilantism—vital as conversion laws face constitutionality tests. Bindal's independence thesis urges outcome-neutral discourse; Oka's restraint balances free speech with institutional dignity.
For practice: Yadav/Bindal's humility mantra enhances advocacy efficacy; women lawyers' push aligns with gender diversification; AI cautions demand verification protocols. Impacts include fortified victim statements under BNSS, internal grievance mechanisms, and policy scrutiny on third-party complaints.
Conclusion: Navigating Judicial Integrity
From Yadav's resilience to HC's vigilance, these retirements and rulings portray a judiciary self-reflective yet steadfast. They compel the bar to embody humility, investigators to resist pressures, and retirees to tread cautiously—ensuring public faith endures. As Bindal noted, confidence hinges on right conclusions, not victors' applause. Legal professionals must internalize these lessons amid high-stakes evolution.
