India’s courtrooms are a closed arena, where long-suffering litigants, judges, lawyers and court officials, play a slow game akin to a theatre of the absurd. Hearings drag on for decades; cases don't come up for hearing at all; and justice is routinely denied to all but the most powerful. This pathetic state was known only to the insiders or those who have had a brush to the justice system.
That has now changed dramatically. Today, thousands of people follow court proceedings in real time through live streams, live-reporting on social media by specialised legal publications and viral video clips. The judiciary’s once-hallowed sanctum is now fully exposed to public gaze.
From family courts hearing marital disputes to constitutional benches debating religion or free speech, every word and gesture of judges and lawyers is now open to scrutiny. The result is a new kind of public engagement — one that brings understanding as well as impatience. People can now see which cases hog judicial time, which linger endlessly, and how courtroom conduct often strays far from judicial decorum.
This increased public awareness has been a gradual process since the landmark decision of 2018 in Swapnil Tripathi versus Supreme Court of India (SC) held that live-streaming was a fundamental right of access to justice under Article 21 of the Constitution.
It was a bold step towards transparency which has also brought new pressures on judges and lawyers. As cameras and social media dissect every raised eyebrow, the judiciary’s image is being reframed in real time. In addition, artificial intelligence (AI) tools and data analytics are now being used by researchers to analyse patterns in orders to expose judicial biases or preferential treatment. Public expectations have risen and patience with judicial inefficiency is beginning to wear thin—especially as cost of litigation has risen in tandem with delays in getting a final verdict.
Courts around the world understand this and have embraced the principle that justice must be seen to be done. Let’s look at how this transparency paradox is reshaping the system across four fronts: judicial remarks, courtroom behaviour, public perception and recusals.
Transparency Paradox: More Visibility, Less Reverence
Oral remarks in court, whether they were quips from the bench or heated exchanges between lawyers, rarely made it to the public domain or the media. Not anymore. Now, every comment, joke or reprimand is clipped, tweeted and judged by millions. In March 2023, the Supreme Court itself warned that “live telecast attaches a stricter standard of responsibility on judges.” Yet, examples of restraint remain rare.
Take the October 2025 hearing of a public interest litigation (PIL) against Indiabulls Housing Finance (now Sammaan Capital). Senior advocate, Harish Salve, labelled the petitioner — Citizens Whistle-blower Forum (CWBF) — a ‘blackmailer’; this sentiment was echoed by another senior counsel as well. Prashant Bhushan, appearing for CWBF, pushed back hard. But consider how damaging this is. CWBF is not a fringe outfit. It was founded by former Delhi High Court chief justice AP Shah, ex-CIC (chief information commissioner) Wajahat Habibullah, bureaucrats-turned-activists Aruna Roy and EAS Sarma, the late Admiral L Ramdas and Mr Bhushan himself. The organisation exists precisely because the government has refused to operationalise the Whistle-blowers Protection Act. When a forum of such high credibility is allowed to be publicly branded ‘blackmailer’ in the Supreme Court, it sends a chilling message to citizen-activists across India.
Something similar occurred this month in another PIL seeking a probe into Vedanta Ltd and its group entities. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta alleged that the petition was ‘motivated’ and ‘appeared orchestrated’ by a ‘foreign short-seller’. While the PIL was withdrawn, it was striking that the government’s top law officer chose to defend a private conglomerate by alleging motives of the part of the petitioner. (Supreme Court refuses to entertain PIL on Viceroy’s allegations against Vedanta)
While the PIL was withdrawn, Indian regulators have shown no sign of investigating a series of detailed allegations made by Viceroy Research (the short-seller), while the Vedanta group itself has not offered any point-by-point rebuttal other than to dismiss the allegations as false and motivated. And then there’s the Delhi High Court spectacle involving Mahesh Jethmalani and Rajiv Nayar — two senior advocates caught on camera shouting each other down in a dispute over the Rs30,000 crore estate of the late industrialist Sanjay Kapur. The clips went viral, drawing criticism from lawyers and the public alike. Mr Kapur was the chairman of Sona BLW Precision Forgings Ltd (Sona Comstar), a listed company.
Senior counsel Dushyant Dave notes that “debate in the Supreme Court has degenerated over the years.” Lawyers representing powerful corporate or government interests, he says, “routinely disrespect and sometimes run down opponents.” What is worse, he says, is that “judges often lack the courage to stop such behaviour.” The public can see this for themselves now.
Adani–Hindenburg: A Case Study in Judicial Optics
One case that attracted intense global scrutiny of India’s market, courts and regulators emanated from the Adani–Hindenburg saga, triggered by a research report by US short-seller Hindenburg Research in January 2023 alleging massive stock price manipulation by the corporate group. The report led to a spectacular fall in Adani group stocks prompting several petitions demanding regulatory accountability.
Instead of directing the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to complete its probe within a deadline, the Court controversially constituted an ‘expert committee’ (comprising former judges and banking and tech luminaries) — effectively sitting in judgement over SEBI (Read: The Curious Concoction of a Court-constituted Committee).
At the same time, judges are growing weary of what they call the ‘abuse’ of PILs. In March 2025, Justice BV Nagarathna delivered a scathing critique, saying many PILs had become ‘paisa interest litigation’, ‘publicity interest litigation,’ or ‘private interest litigation’. Courts have responded by imposing heavy fines for ‘frivolous’ litigation. One example is the 2023 case where the Supreme Court imposed a fine of Rs5 lakh on a petitioner who claimed that the oath taken by the Bombay High Court chief justice was ‘defective’.
Some of this frustration is justified; many PILs are, indeed, dubious. Yet, when judges vent their irritation or question motives without due care, it risks de-legitimising genuine public-interest activism as well, particularly in an era where access to justice is already limited.
Recusals and the Shadow of Influence
If courts are exhibiting impatience over persons filing PILs, then the public at large is growing more frustrated at corruption, delays and ‘connections’ that manifest in recusals by judges. Recusals, in theory, protect impartiality; but the rash of cases where multiple judges recused themselves on ‘personal grounds’ are being viewed as a reluctance to deal with sensitive cases involving powerful corporations, influential entities or whistle-blowers.
The most striking example is that of Indian forest service (IFS) officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi, whose PILs on corruption have seen over a dozen judges recuse themselves over the years. Recusals are certainly better than conflicted hearings, but they give the impression that some cases are too inconvenient to touch.
In an ecosystem already burdened by chronic delays and pendency such evasions compound the perception that justice bends to power. An analysis by the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) indicates that the number of pending cases across India is in the region of 50million. Innumerable cases, especially civil disputes, routinely drag on for decades in district courts and high courts.
The Public Courtroom
The judiciary’s long-standing aura of deference is eroding, replaced by a demand for accountability and performance. Citizens are no longer willing to accept opacity in the name of sanctity. Judges and lawyers, now public figures by default, face the same unforgiving scrutiny as politicians and bureaucrats. Courts around the world are grappling with similar issues, with transparency reshaping judicial authority everywhere. But the stakes are higher in India where faith in public institutions is already fragile.
The genie of transparency cannot be put back into the judicial bottle. It means that the bar of public conduct has to rise for judges, lawyers and the system as a whole. If the courts fail to do so, they risk irrelevance, or worse, even uncontrolled public anger. For a nation that still sees the judiciary as its last line of defence against administration, which often works against public interest, that would be a big loss to bear.
Around 200judges Plus posts vacant in all High courts due to central government indifferent approach to supreme court collegium recommendations. Government sleeping over such files including transfer of HC judge's recommendations of supreme court collegium. Many judge's loosing seniority list due to callous attitudes of law/justice ministry.
While the judiciary deserves its share of blame, the government is even more to blame. For a country that boasts of its huge population, we have a shortage of judges at all levels, partly because judges are not paid enough. Lawyers earn a judge's annual salary in a day ! Add to that the political pressure to handle ruling party politicians with kid gloves and act against political opponents as if they are anti national. The judicial system is luckily but barely surviving at the moment.
With the abysmally low bar set by other branches namely the executive, the media and the legislature, the judiciary is not in any more hot water. The crucial difference is that since judiciary is not backed by "ideology", there are fewer equivalents of andh-bhakts here.
You have inadvertently omitted consumer courts cases pending for years. My case in TN state Consumer court dismissed citing reasons due to my counsel not available on the day of hearing. On the particular cause list my case is not listed. Case dismissed after 6hearings and my counsel submitted argument affidavit during 4th hearing day after elaborate hearings. President passed erroneous order/non application of mine and opposite party not replied to our argument affidavit till dismissal. Consumer courts are supposed to be fast track courts but in reality totally different. President retired High court Judge and I constrained to approach NCRDC for natural justice.
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.
1-year online access to the magazine articles published during the subscription period.
Access is given for all articles published during the week (starting Monday) your subscription starts. For example, if you subscribe on Wednesday, you will have access to articles uploaded from Monday of that week.
This means access to other articles (outside the subscription period) are not included.
Articles outside the subscription period can be bought separately for a small price per article.
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.
30-day online access to the magazine articles published during the subscription period.
Access is given for all articles published during the week (starting Monday) your subscription starts. For example, if you subscribe on Wednesday, you will have access to articles uploaded from Monday of that week.
This means access to other articles (outside the subscription period) are not included.
Articles outside the subscription period can be bought separately for a small price per article.
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.
Complete access to Moneylife archives since inception ( till the date of your subscription )
behaviour by any participant.