Table of Contents

Judicial Accountability Crisis: When Judges Investigate Themselves

Blog 4 of 12|#5: “When Courts Fail Both Ancient Dharma and Modern Jurisprudence”

When a Chief Justice accused of sexual harassment sits on the bench to hear his own case, investigates himself through colleagues, gets cleared in soon after, and receives a Rajya Sabha seat four months after retirement—that’s not justice, that’s institutional corruption.

The Principle That Died on April 20, 2019

“Nemo judex in causa sua”—no one should be a judge in their own cause. This Latin maxim, which has governed civilized legal systems for over 500 years, represents one of the most fundamental principles of natural justice. It ensures that justice is not only done but is seen to be done, that the process itself inspires confidence, that the accused cannot manipulate the machinery of justice.

Samadhi: A Deep Dive into Samprajnata Samadhi

Explore the four progressive stages of Samprajnata Samadhi and their role in the yogic path to Kaivalya.
Read on Samprajnata Samadhi →

On April 20, 2019, India’s Supreme Court abandoned this principle in the most spectacular fashion imaginable.

A former junior court officer alleged that she was sexually harassed and subsequently victimized by the Chief Justice of India – Ranjan Gogoi. She submitted documents substantiating her claims and wrote a letter to 22 other Supreme Court Justices on April 19, 2019.

The next day, instead of recusing himself, CJI Gogoi called an extraordinary hearing where he denied the allegations and called them ‘unbelievable’, suggesting “bigger forces” were trying to “destabilise the judiciary”. He sat on the bench to hear a matter where HE was the accused. He participated in deciding how to investigate himself.

Years later, in December 2021, Gogoi himself admitted: “In hindsight, perhaps, I should not have been on the bench. It might have been better if I was not part of the bench. We all make mistakes.” But by then, the damage was irreversible.

This moment crystallized the judicial accountability crisis we’re examining in this series. As we established in our [framework analysis](Blog 2 link), true justice must satisfy both modern jurisprudence and ancient dharma. The Gogoi case—and the system’s response to it—failed both tests catastrophically.

The Timeline of Institutional Failure

Understanding the depth of this judicial accountability crisis requires examining the precise sequence of events:

April 19, 2019: Former Supreme Court junior court assistant submits detailed affidavit to 22 judges alleging sexual harassment by CJI Gogoi in October 2018, when she was transferred to his residence office at his insistence.

April 20, 2019: Gogoi convenes extraordinary Saturday hearing with himself on the bench. On December 8, 2021, the former chief justice himself admitted that in hindsight, he should not have been on the bench. But by then, the damage was done.

April 23, 2019: The Supreme Court set up an in-house inquiry committee of three sitting judges. Under India’s in-house mechanism, judges investigate fellow judges, judges investigate fellow judges, proceedings remain confidential, hearings are closed to the public, and the final report is not ordinarily published—creating an inherent transparency and independence concern noted by an international human rights agency.

May 6, 2019: The In-House Committee declared it found ‘no substance’ in the allegations. Recently retired Supreme Court Justice Madan Lokur reflected on the allegation and concluded that the inquiry suffered from institutional bias.

November 17, 2019: Justice Gogoi retires as CJI after delivering the Ayodhya judgment.

March 16, 2020: Justice Gogoi nominated to Rajya Sabha by President, less than four months after retirement, after being part of important verdicts like the Ayodhya land dispute.

Notice the pattern: Accused sits on own case → Colleagues investigate colleague → Cleared within weeks → Rewarded with a political position four months later.

Manusmriti: Legal System Insights

A concise overview of ancient Indian legal principles and how they inform notions of duty, justice and authority.
Read Manusmriti Insights →

This isn’t merely a judicial accountability crisis—it reflects a systemic collapse of meaningful accountability mechanisms.

Modern Jurisprudence: The Natural Justice Violation

The principle of natural justice—that no one should be a judge in their own cause—isn’t some Western import. It appears in legal systems across civilizations precisely because it reflects a universal truth: Self-investigation is inherently compromised.

The Global Standard on Judicial Accountability

Every functioning democracy recognizes that judges, precisely because they wield such immense power, must be subject to independent oversight when accused of misconduct:

United Kingdom: The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office operates independently of the judiciary, with external oversight and transparent procedures.

United States: Judicial councils include provisions for independent investigation, with clearly defined processes separate from the accused judge’s influence.

Canada: The Canadian Judicial Council includes public representatives and follows transparent procedures for investigating complaints.

Australia: Judicial Commission operates with external oversight mechanisms ensuring independence from the subject of investigation.

India: Judges investigate judges. The accused participates in selecting investigators. The process is completely opaque. Outcomes are widely perceived as predetermined.

The contrast isn’t subtle—it’s absolute. India’s system stands in stark contrast to global judicial-conduct norms, where independent oversight bodies are standard. Yet this is how the world’s largest democracy handles its judicial accountability crisis.

The Constitutional Violation

Article 14 of India’s Constitution, which we examined in our [framework blog](Blog 2 link), guarantees equal protection. This means the law must apply equally to everyone—including judges.

If a junior employee were accused of harassment, they would face a police investigation, criminal charges, and potential jail time, but a Chief Justice faces only an in-house committee of colleagues, that’s not equal protection—that’s aristocratic privilege.

When lower court judges can be investigated and punished for misconduct, but Supreme Court judges investigate themselves, that violates the basic equality principle. The Constitution doesn’t create a special exemption for judges from the natural justice principle.

The nomination of former CJI Ranjan Gogoi to the Rajya Sabha led to controversy involving denigration of the independence of the judiciary and its reputation, and compromising the principle of separation of powers amongst the three organs of the State.

But the real compromise happened earlier—when he investigated himself and got cleared to deliver politically sensitive judgments like Ayodhya, secure in the knowledge that a political reward awaited.

The Appearance of Justice Standard

Modern jurisprudence recognizes that justice must not only be done but must appear to be done. This “appearance test” exists precisely for situations where actual bias is difficult to prove, but the process itself destroys public confidence.

By any reasonable standard, the Gogoi case failed the appearance test:

Day 1: Accused sits on bench hearing his own case
Day 4: Accused’s colleagues form investigation committee
Day 17: Committee clears accused after secret hearing
Month 4 post-retirement: Accused receives political reward

When Gogoi conducted an extraordinary hearing following accusations against him, he firmly declared that all that a judge had was his reputation, noting that his relatively low financial savings were evidence of his integrity. Yet four months after retirement, that “low financial savings” concern disappeared with a Rajya Sabha position and its accompanying benefits.

NewsClick documented Gogoi’s abysmal attendance in Parliament and zero lawmaking contribution as an MP—suggesting the nomination was reward, not recognition of legislative capability.

The appearance of justice wasn’t merely compromised; serious concerns were raised about whether the process met accepted standards of impartiality.

Ancient Dharma: The Nyaya Sutra Violation

The judicial accountability crisis violates not just modern constitutional principles but also ancient Indian jurisprudence’s most fundamental tenets.

The Principle of Sama-Darshana (Equal Vision)

We explored this concept in detail in our [Dharma vs Jurisprudence framework](Blog 2 link). The principle of sama-darshana demands that those who judge others must themselves be subject to judgment, and that standards must apply equally regardless of position.

The Manusmriti is explicit: Those in positions of authority must be held to higher standards, not lower ones. The text states that when rulers (and by extension, judges) commit offenses, they deserve greater punishment precisely because they betray the trust placed in them.

Ancient Indian legal philosophy recognized what modern systems learned through bitter experience: Power without accountability corrupts absolutely. The concept of Rajdharma—the duty of those in power—includes the obligation to submit to the same laws they enforce.

When CJI Gogoi sat on the bench to hear his own case, he didn’t just violate modern natural justice—he violated the Vedic principle that no one, regardless of their position, is above dharma.

The Satya (Truth) vs. Institutional Protection

The ancient texts emphasize Satya (truthfulness) as the foundation of justice. But truth requires genuine investigation, transparent process, and willingness to accept uncomfortable findings.

The in-house inquiry process violated Satya in multiple ways:

Secrecy: Hearings held in-camera, no public record, no transparency
Speed: One month to investigate, gather evidence, interview witnesses, and conclude—impossibly fast for genuine inquiry
Lack of due process: Complainant faced hostile questioning, denied legal representation for portions
Predetermined outcome: Could colleagues realistically find the boss guilty?

Justice Madan Lokur, reflecting on the inquiry, concluded it suffered from institutional bias—a damning assessment from someone intimately familiar with the system. Justice Indira Banerjee, who was part of the inquiry panel, later stated the report should have been made public.

This process did not demonstrate the transparency or independence expected in serious misconduct inquiries, creating a strong perception of institutional self-protection.

The Ahimsa Principle Through Institutional Failure

The dharmic principle of ahimsa (non-violence) includes preventing harm arising from institutional failure. When the Supreme Court’s handling of the Gogoi case sends a message that powerful judges face no real accountability, it enables future misconduct—a form of institutional violence.

The woman who accused Gogoi was later identified as a potential target of Pegasus spyware surveillance. The Wire reported that 11 phone numbers associated with the former court assistant and her immediate family were found on a database indicating possibility of surveillance—days after she filed her complaint.

When institutions fail to protect complainants, when the accused gets rewarded while the accuser faces potential surveillance and intimidation, that violates ahimsa as surely as physical violence.

The principle demands that those in power create systems that prevent harm—not systems that protect the powerful at the expense of the vulnerable.

Pegasus: Surveillance & Accountability

Summary of Pegasus reporting and implications for complainant safety — contextually linked to the Gogoi case.
Read the Pegasus Summary →

The Pattern of Unaccountability

The Gogoi case isn’t isolated—it exemplifies a systematic judicial accountability crisis where the judiciary has insulated itself from all meaningful oversight:

The Collegium System

Judges appoint judges with no external input, no transparency, no public accountability. When the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act attempted to include non-judicial members, the Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional. In its 2015 judgment, the Court held that external involvement would undermine judicial independence, reinforcing a closed system that also shapes in-house disciplinary processes.

This creates a closed system where institutional loyalty trumps institutional accountability.

The Contempt of Court Weapon

Any criticism of judicial conduct can be punished as “contempt of court”—giving judges power to silence critics that no other democratic institution possesses. This weapon gets used selectively:

Lawyer criticizes specific judgment harshly: Rarely contempt proceedings
Activist questions institutional integrity: Immediately threatened with contempt
Judge investigates himself and gets cleared: Criticize this, face contempt charges

The contempt power creates a chilling effect, discouraging legitimate criticism of judicial misconduct and reinforcing the accountability vacuum.

The Impeachment Impossibility

Article 124(4) of the Constitution provides impeachment as the removal mechanism for Supreme Court judges. It requires a 2/3 majority in Parliament—practically impossible in India’s fractious political landscape.

This means judges face effectively no accountability for anything short of overtly criminal conduct. And as the Gogoi case demonstrated, even allegations of serious misconduct result in self-investigation and rapid exoneration.

The Comparison That Shames

Consider parallel situations to understand how absurd the Gogoi case handling was:

If a police officer was accused of harassment:

Independent investigation by different agency
Criminal charges if evidence warrants
Suspension pending inquiry
Never would investigate himself

If a corporate CEO was accused of harassment:

Independent external investigation
Board oversight with external members
Transparent findings (in public companies)
Never would select his own investigators

If a government minister was accused of misconduct:

Opposition demands independent probe
Media scrutiny throughout
Political accountability to voters
Never would colleagues alone investigate

Chief Justice of India accused of harassment:

Sits on bench hearing his own case
Colleagues investigate colleague
One month to clear him completely
Rajya Sabha reward four months later

The comparison shows that the accountability applied in this case was significantly weaker than the standards typically used in other public-facing institutions.

This is the judicial accountability crisis in its starkest form: the institution meant to hold others accountable refuses to hold itself to any standard whatsoever.

The Post-Retirement Rewards System

The Caravan magazine examined how post-retirement ambitions imperil judges’ integrity, noting that Gogoi’s acceptance of Rajya Sabha nomination unveiled the hidden networks that bind judges, lawyers and governments.

This creates a conflict of interest that poisons judicial independence from the moment a judge ascends to the bench. If judges know that favorable rulings for the government can lead to lucrative post-retirement positions, every judgment becomes suspect.

The pattern is established:

Deliver judgments the government likes
Retire at the mandatory age
Receive political position, tribunal appointment, or government commission
Enjoy benefits far exceeding judicial salary

Legal scholars noted that Gogoi’s nomination raised serious questions about both the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers. But the Supreme Court has consistently refused to impose any cooling-off period or ethical restrictions on post-retirement appointments.

Compare this to our analysis of how bail jurisprudence varies based on political connections, where we documented that politically connected accused receive swift judicial relief while others languish. The post-retirement rewards system explains this pattern: Judges protect those who can reward them later.

The Civilizational Damage

This judicial accountability crisis doesn’t just affect individual cases—it corrodes the entire institutional framework:

Loss of Public Trust

When [ordinary citizens throw shoes at Chief Justices](Blog 1 link), as we examined in our series opener, it’s not random violence—it’s the culmination of decades of institutional unaccountability. People lose faith not in specific judgments but in the system itself.

Enabling Future Misconduct

When judges learn they face no real consequences for misconduct, it enables future violations. The message from the Gogoi case is clear: Even allegations of sexual harassment won’t derail your career if you’re powerful enough.

Selective Justice Pattern

The lack of judicial accountability enables the selective justice pattern we’re documenting throughout this series:

[Selective speed in cases](Blog 3 link) like Shaheen Bagh vs. Haldwani
Selective protection for Waqf Act provisions while scrutinizing Hindu institutions
[Selective sensitivity to religious sentiments](Blog 1 link) shown in the Lord Vishnu comment vs. Nupur Sharma case

When judges know they’re unaccountable, they make decisions based on preference, not principle—knowing no one can question their motives or conduct.

The Institutional Rot

As we documented in our analysis of how institutional failures enabled the Delhi Riots, when core institutions abandon their constitutional duties, the consequences cascade throughout society.

The judicial accountability crisis is similarly corrosive. When the institution tasked with upholding the rule of law operates without equivalent standards of scrutiny, it weakens public confidence in the constitutional framework.

The Double Failure Thesis Applied

Let’s apply our Dharma vs Jurisprudence framework systematically:

Principle	Modern Law Standard	Ancient Dharma Standard	Gogoi Case Reality
Impartiality	Nemo judex in causa sua	No self-judgment	Accused sat on bench
Investigation	Independent oversight	Sama-darshana (equal vision)	Colleagues investigate colleague
Transparency	Public confidence test	Satya (truth through openness)	Secret inquiry, sealed report
Accountability	Equal application of law	Higher standards for powerful	No consequences, political reward
Process integrity	Natural justice	Nyaya Sutra principles	Predetermined outcome

Conclusion: The Supreme Court’s handling of judicial misconduct allegations violates EVERY principle of both modern jurisprudence and ancient dharma. On key principles—impartiality, transparency, and independence—the current system falls short of both constitutional expectations and traditional dharmic standards.

Waqf Amendment Act 2025

Analysis of the 2025 Waqf Amendment: transparency provisions, controversy and legal implications across India.
Read the Waqf Analysis →

What True Accountability Would Look Like

Both modern constitutional principles and ancient dharmic wisdom point to the same reforms:

Independent Oversight Body

External members (not judges investigating judges)
Transparent complaint mechanism
Public hearings for serious allegations
Right to legal representation for all parties
Published findings and reasoning

Post-Retirement Ethics

Mandatory cooling-off period (minimum 2 years) before political or government positions
Prohibition on appointments to positions connected to cases judge decided
Public disclosure of post-retirement income sources
Enforceable ethics code with penalties

Graduated Disciplinary System

Not just “impeachment or nothing”
Censure, suspension, removal from administrative duties for lesser misconduct
Same standards applied regardless of rank or seniority
External review of in-house committee findings

Transparency Requirements

All judicial appointments made public with reasoning
Asset declarations of judges and immediate family
Recusal standards with public disclosure
Conflict of interest guidelines strictly enforced

These aren’t radical proposals—they’re the minimum standards that exist in every other democratic institution and in every other functioning democracy’s judicial system.

The Broader Pattern Continues

The judicial accountability crisis exemplified by the Gogoi case connects directly to the other failures we’re examining in this series:

When judges know they’re unaccountable, they can:

Delay Shaheen Bagh intervention for 101 days ([Blog 3](Blog 3 link))
Mock Hindu religious beliefs while showing extreme sensitivity to others (Blogs 8-9, coming)
Refuse to reopen the Kashmir Exodus case despite compelling evidence (Blog 10, coming)
Trade justice for post-retirement benefits in cases like Bhopal (Blog 5, coming)

The lack of accountability isn’t a separate issue—it’s the enabling condition for all other institutional failures.

Looking Ahead: When Justice is for Sale

Next week, we examine perhaps the most disturbing dimension of this accountability vacuum: What happens when judges appear to trade justice for personal benefit? We’ll analyze the Bhopal Gas Tragedy case, where judicial decisions that denied justice to thousands of victims appeared connected to post-retirement rewards for judges.

The judicial accountability crisis isn’t just about procedures and principles—it’s about real victims denied justice, real perpetrators escaping consequences, and a system that protects itself while abandoning its constitutional duty.

As we continue documenting this systematic failure, remember our thesis: The Supreme Court fails BOTH modern jurisprudence AND ancient dharma. Whether you measure by the Constitution of India or the Vedic principles of justice, the institution meant to embody justice increasingly appears insulated from external scrutiny, creating a perception of an elite body governed by its own internal rules.

Supreme Court Observer Detailed timeline of CJI Gogoi sexual-harassment proceedings and hearings.	Visit
Human Rights Watch Report on how the inquiry committee denied the complainant an effective remedy.	Visit
Al Jazeera Coverage of top judge accused of sexual harassment and judiciary’s response.	Visit
Scroll.in Justice Lokur’s remarks urging the inquiry report be made public.	Visit
The Print Gogoi’s 2021 admission: “In hindsight, I should not have been on the bench.”	Visit
The Week Analysis on why the CJI chose to hear the case against himself.	Visit
Scroll.in – Pegasus Revealed that the complainant’s family numbers appeared on Pegasus target list.	Visit
The Wire Reported Pegasus snooping soon after allegations against the CJI.	Visit
The Quint Explainer: can the Supreme Court restore credibility after Pegasus revelations?	Visit
Bar & Bench Examines Gogoi’s Rajya Sabha nomination—probity and prejudice in perspective.	Visit
The Caravan Investigates post-retirement ambitions and their effect on judicial integrity.	Visit
Scroll.in – Editorial Calls Gogoi’s nomination a tragic blow to judicial independence.	Visit
NewsClick Documents Gogoi’s poor parliamentary attendance and zero lawmaking input.	Visit

Key Takeaways:

✅ CJI Gogoi sat on bench to hear his own sexual harassment case—violating 500-year-old natural justice principle
✅ Gogoi himself admitted in 2021 “in hindsight, I should not have been on the bench”
✅ Colleagues investigated colleague, cleared him in one month—institutional bias confirmed by retired Justice Lokur
✅ Complainant was potential Pegasus spyware surveillance target after filing allegations
✅ Gogoi received Rajya Sabha nomination 4 months after retirement—appearance of reward for favorable judgments
✅ Modern jurisprudence violation: Self-investigation violates natural justice, equal protection, and appearance standard
✅ Ancient dharma violation: Sama-darshana (equal vision) and Satya (truth) principles abandoned
✅ Major democracies maintain external oversight mechanisms for judicial misconduct, unlike India’s predominantly in-house process

This is Blog 4 of “When Courts Fail Both Ancient Dharma and Modern Jurisprudence” – a 12-part series examining Supreme Court failures through the dual lens of constitutional law and Vedic principles.

Series Navigation: Blog 5 – Bhopal Gas Tragedy: When Justice is Traded for Benefits (Coming Next Week)

Feature Image: Click here to view the image.

Glossary of Terms

Nemo judex in causa sua: A foundational legal maxim meaning “no one should be a judge in their own cause,” central to natural justice.
In-house inquiry: An internal judicial investigation where sitting judges examine complaints against fellow judges; closed-door, confidential, and non-public.
Collegium System: India’s judge-appointing mechanism where senior judges select judges without external oversight; struck down NJAC to preserve this control.
National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC): A proposed reform body including non-judicial members, declared unconstitutional in 2015 for allegedly undermining judicial independence.
Sama-darshana: A dharmic principle meaning “equal vision,” requiring equal standards of judgment for all individuals regardless of status.
Satya: The Vedic principle of truthfulness, demanding transparency, honesty, and integrity in all judicial or administrative processes.
Rajdharma: The dharmic duty of those in power to act justly, uphold ethical standards, and apply laws equally to themselves and others.
Ahimsa: The principle of non-violence, including preventing institutional harm caused by failures of justice or accountability.
Ayodhya judgment: A landmark Supreme Court verdict on the disputed Ayodhya land, delivered by a bench headed by CJI Gogoi before his retirement.
Pegasus spyware: Military-grade surveillance software allegedly used to target journalists, activists, and reportedly individuals linked to the Gogoi case.
Contempt of court: A legal mechanism allowing courts to punish criticism deemed to undermine judicial authority, often used to suppress scrutiny.
Article 14: A constitutional guarantee of equality before the law and equal protection of the laws for all citizens, including judges.
Impeachment (Article 124(4)): The difficult judicial-removal process in India requiring a two-thirds parliamentary majority, rarely achievable.
Appearance of justice test: A jurisprudential standard requiring justice to be both done and perceived as fair by reasonable observers.
Manusmriti: An ancient text outlining ethical and legal duties, including higher standards for those in positions of authority.
Nyaya Sutra: Foundational Indian legal philosophy emphasizing procedural fairness, impartiality, and truth-seeking.
Rajya Sabha: India’s upper house of Parliament; Gogoi’s nomination shortly after retirement raised concerns of perceived rewards.
Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO): UK’s independent body handling judicial misconduct complaints, used in contrast with India’s system.
Canadian Judicial Council: Canada’s oversight body with public representatives ensuring transparent judicial discipline.
Judicial Commission of Australia: Independent body overseeing judicial conduct with external accountability measures.
Institutional bias: A systemic tendency within institutions to protect their own members, affecting impartiality of internal inquiries.
In-camera proceedings: Hearings conducted privately without public or media presence; common in India’s in-house inquiries.
Political reward hypothesis: A term referring to the appearance that judicial decisions may influence or be linked to post-retirement appointments.

#JudicialAccountabilityCrisis #GogoiCoverUp #SupremeCourtBias #DharmaVsJurisprudence #JudicialReform #WhenCourtsFailAncientDharmaandModernJurisprudence