BCI chairman refutes senior lawyer Dushyant Dave’s allegation about ‘failure of judiciary in past decade’

Bar Council of India (BCI) chairman Manan Kumar Mishra has refuted senior lawyer Dushyant Dave’s claims about the alleged failure and compromise of the judiciary under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s tenure.

A former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, Dave quit the legal profession earlier this month after practising law for 48 years. He had said that every chief justice, barring a few, succumbed to the government ever since Modi took over as the Prime Minister of India.

However, Mishra questioned Dave’s recent assertion that “since Modi took over as prime minister, every Chief Justice who assumed office has failed the judiciary. One after another, they compromised hundreds of cases under Modi’s influence”.

“Let us examine the record, fact by fact, chief justice by chief justice, judgement by judgement. Let us evaluate each chief justice of India who served during Narendra Modi’s tenure from May 2014 to the present and assess whether their judicial leadership reflects compromise or courage, bias or constitutional fidelity,” Mishra said in a statement.

“A closer look reveals that far from failing the Constitution, the Supreme Court under each chief justice since May 2014 has delivered decisions that have affirmed and advanced democratic values, expanded civil liberties, upheld institutional independence, and preserved the foundational principles of our republic.” He said that if the judiciary was “indeed the single biggest reason for the collapse of the rule of law, one would expect to find a consistent pattern of judicial surrender to executive authority,” the BCI Chairman said.

“On the contrary, what emerges is a nuanced and often courageous assertion of judicial independence, frequently in opposition to the executive, and always within the bounds of constitutional discipline,” Mishra said.

Questioning the timing and intent behind Dave’s allegations, Mishra said Dave did not make such sweeping claims about “judicial compromise” during his active practice before the courts. He now critiques, but only after publicly announcing his retirement, the BCI chairman said.

Referring to the landmark April 8 verdict passed in the case Tamil Nadu versus Governor, in which a Bench headed by Justice JB Pardiwala emphatically curtailed overreach by the Governor of Tamil Nadu in withholding assent to state Bills, he said, “This ruling reaffirms the court’s commitment to federalism, representative democracy, and independence of the legislature, once again demonstrating that even in sensitive matters concerning state- centre relations, the judiciary continues to assert its constitutional authority.

“The judgment is a fitting capstone in your narrative, illustrating how the Supreme Court, under the guidance of a judge elevated during the Modi era, has vigilantly protected democratic processes from executive encroachment,” Mishra said.

“The Indian Judiciary has not surrendered, it has stood as a bulwark of liberty, often in the face of political headwinds, societal polarisation, and institutional stress. The Supreme Court of India has not collapsed, it has, time and again, risen to protect the very rule of law that such accusations claim is in danger,” he said.

India