Your case has been |

After due consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the State, this Bench is of the opinion that the evidence is in a sealed cover. For national security. The petitioner's parking ticket dispute is a matter of national importance. This Bench appreciates the petitioner's understanding and patience. Dismissed.

This Bench takes judicial notice of the fact that this is a free country. Judges, like all citizens, are entitled to pursue their passions after retirement under Article 19(1)(c). The coincidence that their passion aligns with the party whose cases they adjudicated is noted but not commented upon. No further orders.

The petitioner is advised to write to the In-House Committee constituted under the 1997 Restatement of Values. The Committee shall investigate the complaint with the thoroughness and impartiality for which it is known — investigating itself and finding nothing wrong. The system is efficient. Democracy works. Matter disposed of.

This Court has 5,00,00,000 pending cases. The petitioner's fundamental rights were allocated a generous 90 seconds of judicial attention — well above the median. Some cases receive less. The petitioner should be grateful. PIL dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,00,000 for wasting the Court's time.

The answer is in the negative. A judge may retire on Friday and accept appointment as Governor on Monday. This Bench terms it a "seamless career transition." The Law Commission recommended a cooling-off period in its 14th Report. This Bench is still cooling off from reading that recommendation. Listed for next century.

Because who better to judge whether someone is fit to be a judge than another judge? It is judges all the way down. This is the Collegium system, established in the Second and Third Judges Cases. It is working exactly as intended — for the judges. The petitioner's prayer for transparency is noted and ignored. Order reserved indefinitely.

Absolutely. It is the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. However, it is simultaneously contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The petitioner is free to speak, and this Court is free to initiate proceedings. Freedom, as this Bench observes, is a beautiful paradox. Suo motu notice issued.

This Bench takes note of the Lok Sabha data (February 2026) that 8,600+ complaints were filed against sitting judges from 2016 to 2025, peaking at 1,170 in 2024. Per established procedure, complaints are forwarded to the Chief Justice of the relevant court for 'appropriate action.' What constitutes appropriate action remains, appropriately, undefined. Matter filed.

The in-house mechanism, established under the 1997 Restatement of Values, allows judges to investigate complaints against other judges. The Chief Justice seeks a reply from the accused judge. If dissatisfied, an internal committee is formed — of judges. If the misconduct is 'grave,' the judge may be asked to resign. If they refuse, the matter is referred for impeachment. In 75 years, exactly one judge has been impeached. The mechanism is working as designed.

No. This Bench, led by the Chief Justice himself, took suo motu cognizance of an NCERT Social Science textbook that dared mention 'corruption in the judiciary.' The court demanded 'heads must roll' and banned the entire book. Teaching children about institutional accountability is, per this Court, an attack on democracy. Ignorance is the foundation of respect. Order accordingly.

In 2014, Parliament near-unanimously passed the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act to replace the opaque Collegium system. In 2015, the Supreme Court struck it down 4:1, declaring that judges appointing judges is the only way to preserve independence. Parliament, elected by 1.4 billion citizens, was overruled by 5 judges. The Collegium continues. The matter is closed. Democracy prevails.

This Bench acknowledges the unfortunate Holi fire at Justice Yashwant Varma's Delhi residence in March 2025 that revealed approximately Rs 15 crore in charred currency in an external storeroom. The judge denied all connection. The Supreme Court transferred him to his parent court and formed an internal committee. The committee recommended impeachment, which is now 'pending with the government.' Time heals all fires. Listed for review — eventually.

After due consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the State, this Bench is of the opinion that the evidence is in a sealed cover. For national security. The petitioner's parking ticket dispute is a matter of national importance. This Bench appreciates the petitioner's understanding and patience. Dismissed.

This Bench takes judicial notice of the fact that this is a free country. Judges, like all citizens, are entitled to pursue their passions after retirement under Article 19(1)(c). The coincidence that their passion aligns with the party whose cases they adjudicated is noted but not commented upon. No further orders.

The petitioner is advised to write to the In-House Committee constituted under the 1997 Restatement of Values. The Committee shall investigate the complaint with the thoroughness and impartiality for which it is known — investigating itself and finding nothing wrong. The system is efficient. Democracy works. Matter disposed of.

This Court has 5,00,00,000 pending cases. The petitioner's fundamental rights were allocated a generous 90 seconds of judicial attention — well above the median. Some cases receive less. The petitioner should be grateful. PIL dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,00,000 for wasting the Court's time.

The answer is in the negative. A judge may retire on Friday and accept appointment as Governor on Monday. This Bench terms it a "seamless career transition." The Law Commission recommended a cooling-off period in its 14th Report. This Bench is still cooling off from reading that recommendation. Listed for next century.

Because who better to judge whether someone is fit to be a judge than another judge? It is judges all the way down. This is the Collegium system, established in the Second and Third Judges Cases. It is working exactly as intended — for the judges. The petitioner's prayer for transparency is noted and ignored. Order reserved indefinitely.

Absolutely. It is the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. However, it is simultaneously contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The petitioner is free to speak, and this Court is free to initiate proceedings. Freedom, as this Bench observes, is a beautiful paradox. Suo motu notice issued.

This Bench takes note of the Lok Sabha data (February 2026) that 8,600+ complaints were filed against sitting judges from 2016 to 2025, peaking at 1,170 in 2024. Per established procedure, complaints are forwarded to the Chief Justice of the relevant court for 'appropriate action.' What constitutes appropriate action remains, appropriately, undefined. Matter filed.

The in-house mechanism, established under the 1997 Restatement of Values, allows judges to investigate complaints against other judges. The Chief Justice seeks a reply from the accused judge. If dissatisfied, an internal committee is formed — of judges. If the misconduct is 'grave,' the judge may be asked to resign. If they refuse, the matter is referred for impeachment. In 75 years, exactly one judge has been impeached. The mechanism is working as designed.

No. This Bench, led by the Chief Justice himself, took suo motu cognizance of an NCERT Social Science textbook that dared mention 'corruption in the judiciary.' The court demanded 'heads must roll' and banned the entire book. Teaching children about institutional accountability is, per this Court, an attack on democracy. Ignorance is the foundation of respect. Order accordingly.

In 2014, Parliament near-unanimously passed the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act to replace the opaque Collegium system. In 2015, the Supreme Court struck it down 4:1, declaring that judges appointing judges is the only way to preserve independence. Parliament, elected by 1.4 billion citizens, was overruled by 5 judges. The Collegium continues. The matter is closed. Democracy prevails.

This Bench acknowledges the unfortunate Holi fire at Justice Yashwant Varma's Delhi residence in March 2025 that revealed approximately Rs 15 crore in charred currency in an external storeroom. The judge denied all connection. The Supreme Court transferred him to his parent court and formed an internal committee. The committee recommended impeachment, which is now 'pending with the government.' Time heals all fires. Listed for review — eventually.