India's Judicial Immunity: Shield of Independence or Cloak of Impunity?

In a democratic republic governed by the rule of law, no one is meant to be above it. Yet in India, a sitting High Court or Supreme Court judge accused of a criminal act cannot be investigated unless the Chief Justice of India grants permission.

Judicial immunity—meant to protect the independence of the judiciary—is practically sacrosanct in India. While judicial independence is non-negotiable in any democracy, the Indian model increasingly appears to foster a kind of judicial untouchability, where accountability is sacrificed at the altar of insulation.

This insulation—justified as essential to judicial independence—has morphed into near-total immunity, raising troubling questions: Is India’s judicial immunity enabling impunity?

Senior Advocate Vivek Sood of the Delhi High Court captures the contradiction: “Judicial immunity in India is near absolute. While I agree with the principle of protecting judicial independence, immunity needs reform—from within the judiciary".

Sood suggests that instead of requiring CJI approval, a broader panel comprising the entire Supreme Court Collegium should vet requests to probe judicial misconduct. “Let the Collegium supervise an SIT. I am totally against judges being prosecuted by the Government of the day. That would tilt the balance of power in favour of the Executive".

But what happens when the Collegium looks the other way—or when complaints are serious, yet no institutional action follows?

Advocate Mujeeb Ur Rehman offers examples that are hard to ignore. Justice P.D. Dinakaran resigned amid land-grabbing allegations before impeachment proceedings could conclude. Justice S.N. Shukla allowed admissions in defiance of a Supreme Court ban, yet criminal prosecution has been indefinitely delayed. “Resignation is increasingly being used as a loophole to avoid full legal consequences,” Rehman notes.

The rot runs deeper. In 2019, a Supreme Court staffer accused then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi of sexual harassment. The internal committee dismissed the complaint, but without the complainant’s participation. No FIR was filed. “This opacity in internal inquiries,” says Rehman, “creates a perception that judges operate under a different legal standard. It erodes credibility".

Judicial independence is not a license for impunity. As Rehman explains, “While intended to shield judges from frivolous political vendettas, the requirement of CJI sanction has become a barrier to justice itself. It contradicts the very idea that no one is above the law".

India once tried to bridge this gap. The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill of 2010 proposed a National Judicial Oversight Committee comprising both judicial and non-judicial members. It lapsed. Rehman attributes the failure to political hesitation and judicial resistance: “The judiciary has consistently resisted oversight. The government lacks the political will to push reform. And together, they’ve preserved the status quo.”

Is a U.S.-style system even feasible in India? Perhaps not directly. “We shouldn’t copy-paste the American model,” Sood cautions. “Each nation has its own DNA". The American model relies on agencies like the FBI, which function with a degree of independence Indian institutions like the CBI don’t currently enjoy. There's legitimate concern that without judicial oversight, criminal investigations could become tools of political vendetta.

But that doesn't mean change isn’t possible. “A limited but independent judicial oversight body could serve the same purpose,” Rehman suggests. “Allow preliminary investigations without needing CJI approval. Let due process follow".

The core issue is this: should judicial accountability be subordinate to judicial independence? Can democracy afford a system where even credible allegations against judges are stalled indefinitely—where resignation becomes an escape hatch and institutional silence becomes complicity?

Rehman sums it up well: “Judicial accountability and independence are not mutually exclusive. They must coexist for the judiciary to retain public trust".

Sood, too, acknowledges the colonial hangover: “The Indian judiciary suffers from a colonial mindset. Even if a hundred guilty judges go scot-free, we seem more concerned about protecting the institution than preserving justice".

That mindset must change.

India’s judges often speak eloquently about transparency, constitutional morality, and accountability—values they demand of other public servants. It's time the judiciary led by example. A system where FIRs can’t be filed despite evidence, where sanctions are rarely granted, and where misconduct is hidden behind closed doors, is not one rooted in democratic legitimacy.

No institution is above scrutiny—not Parliament, not the Executive, and certainly not the Judiciary.

If India is to remain a democracy governed by the rule of law, judicial accountability cannot be optional. Reform isn’t just necessary—it is overdue.