“You are all aware that there is a pal (sic) of gloom in the corridors of High Court of Karnataka.” So begins a letter written by Justice D.V. Shylendra Kumar to his brothers and sisters on the Bench. Arguably, India’s most outspoken Judge has yet again displayed his displeasure. Justice Kumar had sought an informal meeting with all the judges of the Karnataka High Court, but unfortunately, except for Justice Kumar, no one turned up.

Displaying his angst at the ‘insensitive’ collegium, he writes, “...the judiciary has taken a thorough drubbing in this process, and the reputation of the courts and the judges has reached its nadir and judges are no more looked upon as a respected class of people in the society!” Justice Kumar has trained his sights on the collegium, and justifiably so, after having earlier lashed out at Chief Justice of India, K.G. Balakrishnan and subsequently, Chief Justice of Karnataka, P.D. Dinakaran.

Despite having unsuccessfully requested Justice Dinakaran earlier, to tender his resignation, Justice Kumar is yet to give up. In the second of a series of three letters, he has appealed to Justice Dinakaran to give up administrative duties.

In the third letter, all of which are published on his blog, he has vented his ire at the collegium of the Supreme Court for its secretive manner of functioning. The incensed judge has referred to the First Judges case (S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India) and the Second Judges case (Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association vs. Union of India) as ‘self serving judgements of the Supreme Court’ to insulate itself from public opinion, public needs and demands.

The Supreme Court and its collegium have consistently drawn flak from a wide cross section of the civil society on a variety of issues. Senior Counsel Shanti Bhushan, had earlier told Bar & Bench, “The collegium is obviously not doing its job properly. They should have consulted those who were Justice Dinakaran’s colleagues in the Madras High Court before recommending his elevation.” 

Justice A.P. Shah’s case as well did not help to improve the wavering confidence in the judiciary. One of India’s most erudite judges, Justice Shah was denied his rightful place in the Supreme Court, on account of what sources inform us, petty politics. Sources inform us that his judgment in the ‘377’ and the ‘CJI-RTI’ matters, irked the ‘wrong’ people.

Justices Shah and Kumar have only pointed out the Supreme Court’s biggest flaw; a lack of transparency. Should the proceedings of the collegium and decisions relating to the appointment of Judges be accessible to the public eye? It is probably only a matter of time before members of the legal community lend their voice to this demand. When they do, rest assured, the Supreme Court will not have it easy.