Law Commission Member Hitesh Jain Slams Retired Judges for ‘Political Activism’, Cites Justice Oka’s Stand Amid Collegium Row

His remarks come in response to recent interviews given by former Supreme Court judge Abhay Oka, who also signed a statement with other ex-judges defending retired Justice B. Sudarshan Reddy.

Jain, in a post on X, expressed disappointment at Justice Oka’s position, arguing that he had aligned himself with what he described as a politically motivated lobby of retired judges and activist lawyers.

“From Justice Madan Lokur to Justice S. Muralidhar, Justice Sanjib Banerjee, and now Justice Oka, their interventions increasingly resemble partisan posturing rather than a principled stand on judicial independence,” Jain said.

This controversy comes against the backdrop of divisions within the judiciary. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court Collegium witnessed a rare 4:1 split over the

elevation of Patna High Court Chief Justice Vipul Pancholi. Justice B.V. Nagarathna, who is in line to become India’s first woman Chief Justice, issued a dissent note questioning Pancholi’s seniority, transfer history and the regional imbalance his elevation would create.

Her dissent was circulated and supported by a section of civil society groups and former judges, who described it as a stand against executive influence over the judiciary. Justice Oka’s recent statements and his signing of the Sudarshan Reddy defence letter are being seen as part of the same pattern.

In response, 56 retired judges issued a joint statement cautioning against attempts to undermine the Collegium system. The signatories, including former High Court chief justices and senior judges, criticised the dissent as misguided and warned against what they called a trend of politicising judicial appointments.

Jain cited this context to argue that activist judges were selectively raising concerns about judicial independence only in matters that suited their political narrative.

According to Jain, judicial independence cannot be preserved through press conferences, interviews or letters. Instead, it is lived daily in trial courts, district courts and magistrate courts, where millions of citizens pursue justice in disputes ranging from property recovery and accident claims to the plight of undertrials.

He questioned why judges who now claim to be “custodians of democracy” had remained silent for years on these ground-level issues.

“In the last ten years, have they come forward with constructive solutions for pendency, delays or access to justice? The record shows nothing beyond platitudes in speeches,” Jain remarked.

He also referred to a group of lawyers including Indira Jaisingh, Prashant Bhushan and Sanjay Hegde, who he alleged amplify the narrative that the Supreme Court is in decline whenever a judgment or elevation does not align with their views. He pointed to Jaisingh’s recent comments about “Hindu domination of the judiciary” and her questioning of why a Chief Justice should hail from Gujarat as an example of political undertones in such statements.

Jain said that while no one denies that a Prime Minister can be criticised, the repeated framing of every issue as an attack on Prime Minister Narendra Modi revealed the narrow agenda of these retired judges. “They cannot bully the judiciary or use it as a shield to further partisan objectives. It is important to expose this hypocrisy and remove the mask from such activist judges,” he said.

He expressed disappointment that Justice Oka, once respected as an independent judicial voice, had “joined hands with political activists like Justice Lokur and Justice Muralidhar” whose interventions, he argued, were less about strengthening the judiciary and more about fuelling political narratives.

The episode reflects a wider debate within the legal community over the limits of post-retirement speech and activism. While supporters of Justices Nagarathna, Lokur, Muralidhar and Oka argue that dissent and public statements are essential to accountability, critics like Jain describe them as theatrics that erode trust in institutions.

With the judiciary split in recent weeks between Justice Nagarathna’s dissent and the backing of 56 retired judges for the Collegium, the debate over judicial independence, executive influence and political activism is expected to continue.

For now, Jain’s remarks have added to the calls for retired judges and activist lawyers to focus on the structural issues that affect the justice system.