Not only the Number of Judges, but AI will be required to revolutionise the Judicial System

 

The Union Cabinet has recently approved a proposal to increase the sanctioned strength of judges in the Supreme Court of India from 34 to 38. The proposal is to be implemented through the bill, which would amend the existing 1956 law governing the Court’s sanctioned strength.

The stated reasons, as published in the newspapers, are rising pendency of cases (reported to be around 92,000–93,000 cases), the need for quicker disposal of matters, enabling more Constitution Benches and regular benches to function simultaneously. This would be the first increase since 2019, when the strength was raised from 32 to 34.

In fact, even this number of 38 will be inadequate, which should be further increased, as now there is no dearth of space or infrastructure. However, the pendency cannot be reduced only by increasing the strength of judges, so long as Artificial Intelligence is not used effectively. For this purpose, the judges, staff members and advocates should be properly trained. It should be compulsory for the Bar Associations to mandatorily train the Advocates. If any advocate is unable to undergo, he/she should not be allowed to remain in the actual practice. Such advocates can be effectively used for other purposes. AI must be made compulsory in law schools and colleges for the benefit of new entrants.

 It is everybody's case that delayed justice amounts to denial of justice, but it should not be hurried justice as well, because that is bound to recoil upon the Bench, the Bar and the Clients. The training in AI must be imparted to all related to the judicial process; otherwise, the judicial system will become a mockery, for which the entire system would be held guilty by posterity. AI will also be able to eradicate large-scale corruption in the judiciary.

 The Supreme Court now handles not only constitutional adjudication but also massive special leave jurisdiction under Article 136, public interest litigation, election disputes, commercial matters, criminal appeals, and service cases. Therefore, increasing the number of judges is almost inevitable.

AI can assist justice but cannot replace judicial reasoning. It may, however, help in identifying precedents, summarising records, detecting inconsistencies, transcription, translation, scheduling, and reducing administrative burdens.

 

The Case for the Impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma

 It is a troubling anomaly that, more than a month after tendering his resignation on April 9, 2026, Justice Yashwant Varma remains a judge of the Allahabad High Court on paper. While his resignation awaits formal acceptance by the President, the shadows of the March 2025 discovery—unaccounted, half-burnt currency found at his residence—continue to loom over the integrity of the higher judiciary.

The Investigative Trail

The evidence against Justice Varma is substantial. Following a fire at his official residence, an In-house Enquiry Committee found "strong evidence" that the judge exercised "tacit or active control" over the storeroom where the cash was discovered. When the judge refused to resign voluntarily in May 2025, the matter escalated to Parliament. On August 12, 2025, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla admitted an impeachment motion backed by over 140 MPs and constituted a three-member committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

Justice Varma’s response followed a familiar script of procedural delay. He challenged the inquiry in the Supreme Court, claiming the Speaker's unilateral formation of the committee was invalid. In January 2026, the Supreme Court dismissed his petition, ruling that safeguards for judges cannot be allowed to paralyse the removal process. Having exhausted his legal shields, the judge resigned just as the inquiry panel was set to conclude its probe.

The Constitutional Lacuna

Legally, this situation tests the limits of Article 217(1). While the 1978 Gopal Chandra Misra precedent suggests a resignation is typically final upon receipt, the spirit of the law was never intended to provide a sanctuary for "proved misbehaviour."

By requesting "immediate effect," Justice Varma is not merely seeking retirement; he is seeking to render the parliamentary process infructuous. This strategy has been used before to evade the ultimate constitutional censure:

• Justice Soumitra Sen (2011) resigned after the Rajya Sabha passed an impeachment motion but before the Lok Sabha could vote.
• Justice P.D. Dinakaran (2011) resigned before proceedings reached their logical end.

The Need for a Final Verdict

Allowing a resignation to serve as a "get-out-of-jail-free" card sets a dangerous precedent. It allows a judge to avoid the loss of pension and retirement benefits that a formal impeachment would entail, effectively rewarding a strategic exit.

Accountability is not just about removal; it is about transparency. The public has a right to know the origin of the "half-burnt" cash and the extent of the alleged corruption. To let Justice Varma "wriggle out" via a resignation letter is an admission of systemic helplessness.

For the sake of public trust, the President should consider delaying acceptance of the resignation until the Judges Inquiry Committee submits its findings. Impeachment proceedings must reach their logical conclusion to ensure that the writing on the wall is not an invitation to flee, but a mandate for justice.

 

 

Mamata Government Must Immediately Be Dismissed to Promulgate President Rule

 There is little doubt that, in the last few days, Mamata Banerjee has gone completely insane. She urgently needs proper mental treatment. Although earlier she was also known for her bizarre behaviour, which was considered a sign of her struggling nature.

A politician can indeed sink to any level to gain and retain power, but it is difficult to imagine that a politician like Mamata Banerjee could reach the lowest ebb in public life, and even after being comprehensively defeated at the hustings, refuse to vacate the post of Chief Minister. She talks very highly of morality, constitution and compassion, but her actions are entirely contrary to what she preaches. In fact, there is a world of difference between what she says and what she does.

She contested the election in the name of constitutional democracy, but now, very shockingly, refuses to step down after her and her party’s defeat in the elections.

Thanks to the sagacity of the Election Commission of India and the Central forces, the elections to the Bengal assembly were, for the first time, the most peaceful, despite all efforts by the goondas to create mayhem. Now, while everything was going smoothly, she created a constitutional crisis by refusing to resign as Chief Minister.

The Governor, therefore, has no choice but to dismiss her government under Article 172, read with Article 164, to maintain peace and tranquillity. Thereafter, he will have to constitute the assembly and administer the oath of office of the Chief Minister to a person who enjoys the confidence of the House.

While the political tension is palpable, it's worth separating the heated rhetoric from the constitutional reality. Article 172(1) dictates that a Legislative Assembly exists for exactly five years from its first meeting. For the current assembly, that clock runs out today, May 7, 2026.

Once the term expires, the government no longer has a legal assembly to be responsible to. If a Chief Minister doesn't resign by then, the Governor doesn't just have an option but a constitutional obligation to ensure a government that reflects the new mandate is sworn in.

Under Article 164(1), the Chief Minister and Council of Ministers hold office "during the pleasure of the Governor." Conventionally, the "pleasure" is withdrawn only when a government loses a floor test. In this scenario, where the election results are clear, and the incumbent has even lost her own seat, the Governor can legally withdraw that "pleasure" if the CM refuses to step down after the results are notified.

With the assembly term ending in less than 24 hours, the Governor will have to formally invite the leader of the majority party to form the government. And dismiss the current cabinet if no resignation is tendered, citing the expiration of the assembly's term and the withdrawal of "pleasure" under Article 164.

The AoR Examination Must Not Be Cancelled

 

The decision of the Supreme Court’s Advocate-on-Record (AoR) Examination Committee not to hold the AoR Examination in 2026 is deeply disappointing and difficult to justify. The reason reportedly offered—that the existing number of AoRs is already adequate—is flimsy, arbitrary, and contrary to the principles of fairness and professional opportunity.

The AoR system is not merely an internal administrative arrangement. It is the gateway through which advocates earn the right to independently file and conduct matters before the Supreme Court. Closing that gateway for an entire year amounts to denying deserving lawyers an opportunity they have spent years preparing for.

The numbers themselves tell a different story. About twenty-five years ago, only 10 to 15 candidates would pass the examination annually. Today, hundreds qualify. In 2024, more than 350 candidates cleared the examination out of nearly 1,200 who appeared. In 2025, only 207 passed out of more than 1,550 candidates. The pass percentage dropped sharply from nearly 30 per cent in 2024 to less than 14 per cent in 2025. These figures hardly suggest an uncontrolled flood of AoRs.

There are clear reasons why more lawyers now qualify. First, the legal profession today attracts far brighter and more committed students than it did decades ago. Earlier, many students entered law courses as a fallback while preparing for other competitive examinations. Today, law is often a first-choice profession, pursued seriously and competitively from the outset.

Second, the old Accountancy paper—long regarded as a stumbling block despite being only of school-level difficulty—has been removed. Its elimination naturally enabled meritorious candidates to focus on subjects genuinely relevant to Supreme Court practice.

But even assuming the Committee believes too many candidates are passing, cancellation is the worst possible remedy. If standards need tightening, make the examination tougher. Raise the bar. Test drafting, procedure, ethics, and court craft more rigorously. Permit only the deserving to succeed. But do not abolish the opportunity itself.

Every candidate is already required to undergo one year of mandatory training under a senior AoR with at least ten years’ standing. Many young lawyers have devoted time, effort, and income to complete this rigorous requirement. To deny them an examination after such preparation is manifestly unfair.

If the Committee’s logic is accepted, then whenever a profession appears crowded, entry examinations should simply be suspended. Should law colleges be shut for a few years because there are too many lawyers? Should medical admissions be halted because there are too many doctors? The absurdity of the proposition is self-evident.

More importantly, the very rationale of restricting AoRs by geography has weakened in the digital era. With e-filing, virtual hearings, online defect curing, and paperless systems, the old insistence on maintaining offices within a 16-kilometre radius of the Supreme Court has become outdated. A lawyer can now effectively work from any part of India—and even from abroad.

The Supreme Court has consistently spoken of access, merit, and modernization. The cancellation of the AoR Examination moves in the opposite direction. It restricts access, penalizes merit, and ignores technological reality.

The Examination Committee should urgently reconsider its decision and hold the AoR Examination in 2026. Standards must be preserved—but opportunity must not be denied.

 

Contempt Petition Against Video Recording of the Court Proceedings is Misconceived

 An advocate, Vaibhav Singh, has filed a contempt of court petition in the Delhi High Court against some people for uploading reels of Arvind Kejriwal's arguments before Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma. Firstly, this petition should not have been filed because it runs counter to transparency in the court, unless, of course, it has not been edited dishonestly. There has been a long movement for the live streaming of the court proceedings of all the courts, because in that case, the clients and general public can watch what is going on in the courts.

If the live streaming of the Parliament and assemblies can be managed, why can't the same be done for the courts? Thankfully, the Supreme Court of India made a historic decision on the live streaming of its proceedings. Every difficulty brings certain good things along with it. Thus, we find that Covid-19 brought virtual hearings for cases, which proved to be an immense blessing in disguise.

Therefore, the very filing of the contempt of court petition was misconceived. Secondly, why was the recusal by one of the judges made dramatic, when the petition should have been dismissed at the first instance, as it was nothing but publicity interest litigation?

In all fairness, the High Court should have allowed the live streaming of the proceedings, but if it did not allow, then it should have firstly enquired about the lapses by the court staff because it was next to impossible for any individual to have meticulously recorded the proceedings.  In fact, there was nothing to be concealed, but by this petition, unnecessary publicity is being given to a person who does not deserve it. The motive of the person who got it recorded and made it viral is very clear: he wanted to get the public sympathy for the wrongs done by him when he was in authority.

As they say, sunlight (transparency) is the best disinfectant and therefore, transparency should be encouraged, particularly by the constitutional courts. Moreover, live recordings are always factual, and there is no crime involved in the factual reporting, as it is the very fundamental right of every citizen to know the factual status. Hence, there is no point in giving undue publicity to any person by not dismissing the petition in limine

The "Hellhole" Label Fails to Define the Indian Diaspora

 

The "Hellhole" Label Fails to Define the Indian Diaspora

While Donald Trump’s sweeping characterisation of India and China as a "hellhole" is certainly provocative, it is an assessment that ignores the profound differences in how these two immigrant groups contribute to and integrate into American society. Trump is often viewed as unpredictable and unfathomable. Still, his rhetoric fails to account for the undeniable fact that the Indian diaspora has become an indispensable pillar of the United States.

Unlike other groups that may focus primarily on commercial volume, Indians who settle in the U.S. generally do so through a foundation of high qualifications and rigorous hard work. While a small minority might seek entry through unconventional means—such as the arduous "donkey routes" or the strategic timing of births to secure citizenship—the vast majority are well-educated professionals who act as vital assets. In fact, many of America’s manufacturing and professional industries would face a risk of collapse if the Indian workforce were removed en bloc. Despite often being more diligent and highly qualified than their local counterparts, many Indians accept lower salaries at mid-level positions, performing their duties without unnecessary fuss.

Furthermore, the level of cultural and social integration among Indians is arguably higher than that of any other immigrant community. Indians typically possess a command of the English language that rivals or exceeds that of native-born Americans. Their commitment to their chosen country is reflected in their lifestyle choices, from adopting local food habits to raising families that are deeply rooted in American communities.

Ultimately, disparaging India by clubbing it with China is unjustified. While the Chinese presence is numerically larger and often concentrated in specific business sectors in Western America, the Indian contribution is defined by professional excellence and deep-seated loyalty. Rather than dismissing such nations with broad strokes, there is a clear need for a more nuanced understanding of how specific immigrant groups have strengthened the nation's fabric.

Justice must not only be done, but must also appear to have been done

 On 13th April, the former Chief Minister of Delhi, Shri Arvind Kejriwal, argued his case in the High Court of Delhi for the recusal of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma from hearing his case. In a lengthy argument of more than an hour, he raised ten points as to why she should not hear the case. The most damning ground was that, since she is sympathetic to the philosophy or ideology of a particular party, which is his political enemy, he has genuine reasons to believe he will not receive fair justice from the court presided over by her. He specifically mentioned that she has attended four programmes of Adhivakta Parishad, which is closely linked with the Bharatiya Janata Party, which is hostile to him and his party. Shri Kejriwal wants a judge of impeccable integrity to hear his case and decide the matter. Justice Sharma has reserved the order.

There is no doubt that justice should not only be done, but it should also appear to have been done. On the 15th of April, Kejriwal levelled another allegation to impeach her integrity, namely that her two children, son and daughter, are on different panels of the Central government; therefore, she can hardly be expected to dispense fair justice to him.

However, if the logic of Shri Kejriwal is accepted on its face, nobody can function as a judge in most of the cases. Most of the judges, right from the Supreme Court to the subordinate courts, have their near and dear ones working in government organisations and corporate houses, where they perform their duties. Here, the accepted norm is that nobody will practise in the court where any relative of theirs is a judge. This is very fragile ground. From this logic, Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma cannot be kept under the scanner. Preventing any judge from attending any function organised by an organisation having proximity with any political party is a far-fetched theory. If this logic is accepted, then it will amount to direct curtailment of the fundamental rights of an individual. Thus, this argument or allegation of Kejriwal stands on a very weak footing. There have not been one or two but hundreds of examples where judges have been active members of political parties, but nobody has raised any doubt over their justice or jurisprudence. Justice VR Krishna Aiyer is the most shining example of it, whose judgments have been appreciated by one and all.

Another point is that if it were not Kejriwal, could any ordinary person, or as they say, any aam aadmi, have got this opportunity to address the court? Kejriwal used this marathon opportunity to level allegations, left and right, against the court. In all fairness, he should have been asked to file the affidavit instead of being allowed to make a political speech in the court.