Judiciary suffers from a deep crisis of credibility

It is often said that sunlight is the best disinfectant — a reminder that transparency is the foundation of reliability. Without transparency, public trust or faith cannot meaningfully exist. Undeniably, the judiciary has traditionally enjoyed greater public confidence than any other constitutional branch, whether Parliament or the Executive. Even the so-called fourth pillar of democracy — the media — has, in recent years, been grappling with a serious crisis of credibility.

However, signs now suggest that the judiciary’s own trustworthiness is also facing erosion. The subordinate judiciary at the district level is frequently criticised by the public for perceived corruption. While the higher judiciary continues to command relatively greater confidence, recent developments indicate that this faith, too, may be waning. Government data has revealed a striking figure that has reignited debate over judicial accountability in India: over the past decade, more than 8,200 complaints have reportedly been received against sitting judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court.

This number raises serious questions not only about judicial conduct but also about the manner in which such complaints are processed. How many of these complaints have actually reached a logical conclusion remains an open and pressing question. Depending on the findings of in-house enquiries, outcomes may range from dismissal of complaints to informal advisories, while, in the rarest instances, matters proceed towards impeachment through Parliament — a path that has historically been exceptional and politically complex. The public understandably expects timely inquiries and decisive action against judges found wanting, rather than processes that move at a glacial pace.

Although confidentiality is often justified as essential to preserving judicial independence, excessive opacity can fuel speculation and deepen public distrust — particularly when complaints number in the thousands. Striking a careful balance between independence and accountability, therefore, remains one of the most critical challenges facing the Indian judiciary today.

Almost Nil Impact of Bharat Bandh Call of Trade Unions

 On February 12, Jantar Mantar in New Delhi served as a focal point for a major gathering as part of a nationwide general strike (Bharat Bandh). Unfortunately, the gathering drew fewer than 500 people. These people were presented as workers, but most were college students. The demonstration was organised by a joint platform of over 10 Central Trade Unions (CTUs), including CITU, AITUC, and INTUC, as well as the Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM). This dismal demonstration by the Trade Unions further proves that workers are no longer interested in their tall talk, as the Unions have miserably failed to protect the interests of the working class in India. Things have also changed. There are now a negligible number of workers. Their way of working has changed. They have become habituated to the new facilities. Therefore, they cannot be herded like the workers of the eighties or even the nineties.

The protesters called for the repeal of the four new labour codes, the restoration of MGNREGA (which they claim has been undermined by recent acts), and the withdrawal of the Electricity Amendment Bill and the Draft Seed Bill. These Trade Unionists are themselves unaware of the nuances of the new labour codes. It will, therefore, be advisable for trade unionists to organise a refresher course on the new labour codes, where they can invite young professionals such as Yajat Kumar of the LLR, the grandson of the legendary lawyer, the late HL Kumar.

Impact of the Strike

The overall impact of the Bandh calls across Delhi and the rest of the country was muted. The strike had some impact in states like Kerala, where public transport and banking were somewhat disrupted. In other regions such as West Bengal and Gujarat, life remained largely normal. Public sector banks saw partial disruptions in some places, as major unions like AIBEA joined the strike, affecting cheque clearances and counter services in several branches.

 

Three Generations of Legal Excellence: The Evolution of Labour Law

The legacy of the late Shri H.L. Kumar, the legendary lawyer and founding editor of the prestigious Labour Law Reporter (LLR), continues to reach new heights through the dedicated work of his son and grandson. Gaurav Kumar and Yajat Kumar have taken up the mantle, ensuring that the foundation laid by the patriarch remains a cornerstone of Indian jurisprudence while evolving for a modern era.

The Dual Pillars of the Kumar Legacy

The family's contribution to the legal field now operates through two strategic strengths:

•        Gaurav Kumar: Continues the tradition of rigorous advocacy, focusing on high-stakes litigation and landmark cases in the Supreme Court and High Courts.

•        Yajat Kumar: Has emerged as a "beacon light" for the media and industrial sectors, bridging the gap between complex statutory requirements and practical corporate application.

A Visionary in Legal Consultancy

Recently, the younger Kumar was bestowed with the "Industry Change Makers Award," a rare distinction instituted by India’s leading publications, The Economic Times and The Times of India. This accolade recognises Yajat Kumar as a premier employment law consultant, a title reserved for those who demonstrate exceptional leadership and a transformative impact on their field.

In many circles, it is whispered that Yajat has become the "New H.L. Kumar," not only matching the brilliance of his grandfather but surpassing traditional boundaries to meet the needs of a globalised workforce.

The Recognition: Why he is a "Change Maker"

The award specifically acknowledged Yajat’s role in reshaping the industry through:

•        Strategic Guidance: Navigating intricate employment issues with surgical precision.

•        Balanced Advocacy: Championing robust legal frameworks that harmonise the interests of both employers and employees.

•        Thought Leadership: Driving the editorial vision of LLR to remain the most trusted resource for legal professionals and HR practitioners.

Mastery of the New Frontier

Perhaps Yajat Kumar’s most significant contemporary contribution is his profound clarity regarding the Four New Labour Codes. As these codes come into force, his "incredible and excellent" understanding has made him an indispensable asset to organisations struggling to navigate the transition.

His dedication to legal excellence and innovation ensures that the Kumar name remains synonymous with the highest standards of Indian labour and employment law.

 

Social Media: An Unguided Missile Needing Regulation

 The growth of responsible media is welcome; no other medium disseminates information or commentary with such speed. However, information circulated on these platforms must often be taken with a pinch of salt. Frequently, we are bombarded with fabricated narratives driven by purveyors with their own axes to grind. These individuals often fail to realise the damage they inflict on the credibility of information and the reputation of the media itself.

The root of this anarchy is a lack of binding ethics or values. While self-regulation is often emphasised, it remains, in reality, a charade. Unlike traditional media, social media lacks a "gatekeeper," making it a double-edged weapon. Artificial Intelligence, otherwise immensely useful, has further empowered bad actors to distort facts and manufacture narratives that suit their agendas.

Just today, we witnessed a prime example of this: a deluge of social media posts claiming that the West Bengal Chief Minister—a law graduate from a lesser-known college—argued the "SIR" (Special Intensive Revision) case in the Supreme Court with the prowess of a senior counsel. Viral photographs depicted her in an advocate’s robes, cementing this false narrative.

The truth, however, is legal and distinct. She appeared before the Court only as a party in person, a right permitted under Indian law. As a matter of fact, no Minister or Chief Minister can appear in court as an advocate.

This prohibition is grounded in Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules, which states that an advocate shall not be a full-time salaried employee of any government or corporation. If an advocate takes up such employment, they must suspend their practice. While the Supreme Court has clarified that MPs and MLAs can practice (as they are elected representatives, not employees), the position for Ministers is different. Ministers hold an "Office of Profit" and perform full-time executive duties; thus, they are precluded from practising law to prevent a conflict of interest.

Despite this clear legal position, fake news about her "brilliant advocacy" is being peddled with reckless abandon. The reality of her performance was starkly different. While she certainly addressed the court, her arguments were legally lacking and, at times, frivolous. The language was untenable.

Ultimately, the issue here is not the Chief Minister, but the medium. Her case is merely a symptom of a larger malady. It is imperative that the government, in consultation with responsible media organisations, evolve a robust regulatory mechanism to force social media onto a path of accountability.