Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave Alleges Corrupt Judges in Supreme Court Have Damaged Justice

In a blistering critique of India’s highest court, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave has alleged that the Supreme Court has been plagued by a significant number of corrupt judges who have inflicted “great damage to justice.” Delivering the 17th KM Bashir Memorial Lecture, Dave painted a grim picture of a judiciary that, in his view, has become skewed in favour of the wealthy and powerful, while failing to act as a bulwark against executive overreach. His remarks, delivered before a legal audience, have reignited debates about judicial integrity, independence, and the health of India’s constitutional democracy.

A Scathing Indictment of the Apex Court

Dave, a veteran lawyer with 48 years of practice, did not mince words. “I can tell you as having been a lawyer for 48 years in judiciary that judiciary has some outstanding judges but there have been so many corrupt judges, that I have lost a count now, in Supreme Court,” he said. He added that these judges have “really done great damage to justice because justice is basic human requirement.” The lecture, titled “Are We Failing the Constitution or Has the Constitution Failed Us?,” provided the platform for a wide-ranging attack on what Dave sees as systemic failures within the judicial system.

The senior advocate’s allegations come at a time when public confidence in the judiciary is already under strain. While he acknowledged the presence of “some outstanding judges,” his emphasis on corruption suggests a deep rot that goes beyond isolated incidents. Dave did not name any specific judges, but his assertion that he has “lost count” implies widespread misconduct.

Justice for the Wealthy?

Dave further alleged that the judicial system has been hijacked by the rich and powerful. “Justice is skewed by them. The rich and the powerful have hijacked the judicial system from us. Their cases are heard fast,” he charged. He pointed to the frequent favourable judgments obtained by large industrial houses, noting that “every second or third day” business newspapers report such victories. “It is very surprising how they succeed in all cases. There is never a failure by them but that's what is happening,” he said.

This criticism echoes long-standing concerns about access to justice in India, where expensive litigation and backlog often disadvantage ordinary litigants. Dave’s remarks suggest that the problem is not merely structural but also attitudinal, with the judiciary allegedly bending to the influence of economic power.

The Silent Court: Article 32 Under Threat

A central theme of Dave’s lecture was the failure of the Supreme Court to exercise its constitutional role under Article 32, which empowers it to enforce fundamental rights. “It is not just that Mrs. Gandhi during emergency was responsible for excesses but it's also what is happening in last 12 years in the country that, you know, things are really going beyond control because the fundamental rights which are so essential and Article 32 which requires Supreme Court to enforce those rights, Supreme Court is not willing to interfere at all even when it sees that fundamental rights are breached,” Dave said.

He drew a direct parallel between the excesses of the Emergency era under Indira Gandhi and recent executive actions under the current government. This is a potent comparison, one that many civil libertarians have made, but rarely from a platform of a senior advocate speaking at a memorial lecture. Dave’s assertion that the Supreme Court has become a passive spectator to fundamental rights violations will resonate strongly with legal practitioners who have witnessed an increasing reluctance to entertain public interest litigations.

Dave also criticised the Supreme Court’s approach to the ongoing electoral bonds scheme and the SIR (Self-Identifying Risk) exercise, warning that adult franchise itself is threatened due to the inaction of the apex court and the Election Commission.

A Homogeneous Bench: The Diversity Deficit

Dave turned his attention to the composition of the Supreme Court, specifically attacking former Chief Justice DY Chandrachud for failing to appoint a single woman among the 17 judges elevated during his tenure. “Justice Chandrachud, who otherwise claimed himself to be a great, you know, liberal judge, he appointed seventeen judges to Supreme Court. Not one was a woman,” Dave noted.

He argued that the judiciary’s lack of diversity—both gender and caste—hinders its ability to understand the social context of disputes. “Most judges in this country are from higher caste and most of them belong to the legal fraternity. Unless you appoint judges from across cross-section of the society, they will never understand the sensitivity that justice delivery demands,” he said. Dave stressed that justice must be equitable and just, not merely legal, and that requires judges who truly grasp societal problems.

This critique is particularly relevant given ongoing debates about judicial appointments and the need for a more representative bench. The absence of women in recent elevations has been a point of contention, and Dave’s remarks amplify calls for reform of the collegium system.

The Fourth Estate’s Failure

Dave did not spare the media either. He accused the press of failing to protect citizens and instead engaging in a “massive campaign of disinformation.” “Our voice doesn't count because the two pillars which can protect us, the media and judiciary, both have failed us miserably,” he said. He claimed that television coverage presents an unrealistically positive picture of India, ignoring problems like unemployment, agricultural distress, and inadequate investment.

He specifically challenged the media’s scrutiny of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Dave noted that since 2014, Modi has inaugurated projects involving trillions of rupees, but “not even 20% of such projects had actually been executed.” Yet, he said, “media never talks about it.” He further alleged that no media outlet asks Modi “an inconvenient question,” linking this to the Prime Minister’s avoidance of traditional press interviews. “Our Prime Minister has not faced media even once since 2014,” Dave claimed, attributing the media’s silence to ownership by wealthy interests who have “their own skeletons.”

Legal Implications and the Road Ahead

Dave’s lecture is more than a polemic; it raises serious questions about the health of India’s constitutional institutions. For legal professionals, his allegations should prompt introspection. If the Supreme Court is indeed failing to enforce fundamental rights, the very foundation of constitutional democracy is at risk. The corruption allegations, while lacking specific evidence in the public domain, call for a robust mechanism to address judicial misconduct without compromising independence.

The absence of diversity in the judiciary is a structural issue that the collegium and the government must address. Without representation from all sections of society, the judiciary risks losing touch with the realities of those it serves. The media’s role as a watchdog is equally critical; its perceived failure to hold power accountable further weakens democratic checks.

Conclusion

Dushyant Dave’s address at the KM Bashir Memorial Lecture serves as a stark warning. Whether one agrees with all his assertions or not, the underlying concerns about corruption, bias, executive overreach, and the erosion of fundamental rights demand urgent attention. For those who practice law and cherish the Constitution, his words are a call to action—to demand accountability, transparency, and a renewed commitment to justice. The lecture, titled “Are We Failing the Constitution or Has the Constitution Failed Us?,” seems to answer its own question: perhaps the failure lies in how we have allowed our institutions to drift from their constitutional moorings. The remedy, as Dave implies, lies in speaking truth to power—and in ensuring that the pillars of democracy, including the judiciary and the media, fulfill their intended roles.