From the courtrooms to legal campaigns for public good, the tradition of judicial activism and legal outreach by the courts in India is well documented. The Supreme Court, High Courts, and even lower courts have earned public respect for their integrity and independence in delivering justice and implementing the law in both letter and spirit, despite the limitations of evidence-based empirical legal practice. This public trust in the judiciary enables the Indian state and its legal systems to ensure the government’s constitutional accountability to the people of India.

Democratic politics thrives under the rule of law, where justice is not only a path and product but also a process and a destination. Therefore, the rule of law (Niti or policies) cannot be separated from justice (Nyaya). This integrated judicial framework was shaped not only by the struggles of working people against British colonialism, Indian feudalism, and patriarchy, but also by the public’s frequent celebration of judicial activism and court outreach as means to hold those in power accountable.

However, the very integrity and independence that once gave the courts in India their legitimacy is now declining in the public eye. Increasingly, people are questioning the judiciary’s ability to hold the powerful accountable. Perceived biases among judges—particularly those favouring the ruling or non-ruling elite classes—are accelerating the erosion of public trust in the courts. Any form of open judicial discrimination or ideological bias in favour of the ruling class and those in power has long been considered anathema to legal practice, driven by the need to protect and preserve public legitimacy of courts, legal systems and processes. Without public legitimacy, equality, and the freedom to express democratic dissent, justice becomes an empty legal formality.

Dissents, disagreements, debates, discourses, and contrarian views play a central role not only in the development of scientific knowledge but also in the evolution of scientific judicial practice. Such engagement strengthens the objectivity in the delivery of justice within subjective conditions, thereby enhancing the judiciary’s legitimacy and its constitutional standing as an independent, integral, and unbiased institution. However, political, social, class, caste, and gender biases among judges in different courts undermine the very foundations of justice in India.

Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih’s questioning of the fundamental purpose and legitimacy of government welfare programs for urban homeless people, along with Justice Dipankar Datta’s remarks on Rahul Gandhi’s political statements and his perception of Chinese aggression and occupation of Indian territory as “unpatriotic,” add to the growing body of concerns regarding bias in the Supreme Court, High Courts, and lower courts in India.

Similarly, the Bombay High Court bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad opposed the organisation of a solidarity march by the left parties in support of Palestine and against the occupation and suffering of people in Gaza, characterising it as an unpatriotic act. Their order stated: “You are looking at issues in Gaza and Palestine. Look at your own country. Be patriots. This is not patriotism”.

My Lords, Indian patriotism is rooted in the anti-colonial, anti-capitalist, anti-feudal, and anti-patriarchal struggles of the working people. These struggles were not only nationalistic but also inherently internationalist in both letter and spirit, inspiring anti-colonial, anti-racist, and anti-apartheid movements in various parts of the world. Judges must recognise and understand the ideological foundations of India’s freedom struggles and the strength of their ideals. These struggles against colonialism not only brought an end to British rule in India but also contributed to the deepening of democracy and the expansion of citizenship rights in Britain itself. Indian patriotism, therefore, is not rooted merely in territorial nationalism but in a broader vision of justice, equality, and global solidarity.

However, a form of historical and ideological amnesia appears evident among certain judges, whose biased perceptions are shaped by political preferences rather than by a deep understanding of philosophies of these foundational struggles. Indian patriotism embraces the spirit of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the world is one family), whereas territorial patriotism is Eurocentric and contrary to the Indian ethos. Political bias can blind judges to understand the true nature and character of this philosophical ethos.

Such political and ideological biases not only erode the universal character of justice but also undermine the very democratic and constitutional foundations of the judiciary in India. These instances cannot be classified as judicial activism or legal outreach for the public good; rather, they reflect political activism by judges driven by personal political and ideological leanings. This kind of bias compromises the independence and integrity of the judiciary in India.

The struggle for an independent judiciary—free from political, social, economic, cultural, class, caste, gender, and sexual bias—is inseparable from the broader struggle for working-class emancipation from a capitalist system. This system has commercialized culture within the judiciary and marketized legal processes, where power and authority are too often equated with justice. Such a framework amounts to a denial of justice to the masses and obstructs their liberation from an exploitative and inherently unequal society sustained by patriarchal capitalism in India. True bias-free justice is possible only in a world free from capitalism; there is no other path to achieving absolute justice grounded in equality and individual liberty enshrined in the Constitution of India.