The GenZ Lawyers Association (GZLA) has announced a nationwide campaign for comprehensive judicial reforms, greater transparency and accountability in the justice-delivery system, protection of litigants and advocates against abuse of judicial authority, and creation of an effective mechanism through which complaints involving serious judicial misconduct or alleged criminal wrongdoing can be independently examined and acted upon.
The campaign will be organised in phases. The first major programme is proposed to be a massive bike and car rally of approximately 5,000 advocates in Mumbai. Thereafter, similar rallies, meetings and public-awareness programmes are proposed across different States and major cities of India, ultimately culminating in a nationwide gathering and peaceful protest at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi.
The central message of the movement will be
Judiciary Theek Toh Sab Theek.” “न्यायपालिका ठीक तो सब ठीक।”
GZLA stated that a strong, independent, impartial and accountable judiciary is indispensable to the survival of constitutional democracy. According to the Association, judicial reforms should therefore not be viewed as a movement against the judiciary; rather, accountability and transparency are essential for strengthening the institution and restoring and preserving public confidence in the administration of justice.
Demand for FIR and Investigation in Justice
Yashwant Varma Matter
As part of the campaign, GZLA has demanded the immediate registration of an FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma and all other persons whose involvement may be disclosed during a lawful investigation, followed by a fair, independent and time-bound investigation in accordance with law.
The Association maintains that where information and material before the competent authorities disclose a cognizable offence, the ordinary criminal-law process should operate in accordance with law irrespective of the status or office of the person concerned.
GZLA has emphasised that its demand is for registration, investigation and due process, and that the ultimate determination of criminal liability must necessarily take place before the competent court in accordance with law.
The Association has further criticised what it considers to be the failure of the State machinery to take sufficiently prompt criminal-law action in the Justice Yashwant Varma matter. According to GZLA, this episode demonstrates the urgent need for a clear statutory framework specifying who will receive a criminal complaint against a Judge, which agency will examine it, how and within what period a decision will be taken, and what remedy will be available where the competent authority fails to act.
Not One Individual Case — GZLA Seeks Systemic Judicial Reforms
GZLA stated that its proposed movement is not confined to the case of any one Judge.
The Association has called for an effective institutional response wherever there are credible and substantiated allegations against judicial officers concerning corruption, dishonesty, gross misconduct, deliberate abuse of judicial authority, serious procedural impropriety, persistent rude or intimidating behaviour towards advocates or litigants, or other conduct inconsistent with the dignity and responsibilities of judicial office.
GZLA has demanded that such complaints should neither be summarily ignored merely because they concern a judicial officer nor accepted mechanically merely because an allegation has been made. Instead, there should be a fair, independent and time-bound screening and inquiry mechanism, capable of separating frivolous complaints from cases requiring disciplinary, administrative or criminal action.
Where misconduct alone is disclosed, appropriate administrative or disciplinary proceedings should follow. Where the material prima facie discloses a criminal offence, GZLA has demanded that the matter should be dealt with under the criminal law through the procedure applicable in law.
“Judicial Independence Cannot Mean Absence of Accountability”
According to GZLA, the constitutional protection of judicial independence exists to enable Judges to decide cases fearlessly, impartially and according to law. It cannot be converted into a shield against accountability for conduct falling outside the legitimate exercise of judicial functions.
The Association has therefore called for a proper balance between two equally important objectives: protecting honest Judges against motivated and frivolous complaints, while simultaneously protecting citizens and advocates against genuine cases of serious judicial misconduct, corruption or abuse of authority.
GZLA stated that any new mechanism must be carefully structured so that disgruntled litigants cannot intimidate Judges merely because an adverse order has been passed. At the same time, the existence of frivolous complaints cannot become a justification for denying an effective remedy to a citizen possessing credible documentary or other evidence of serious wrongdoing.
Demand for a Clear Mechanism for Criminal Complaints Against Judges
One of the principal demands of the nationwide campaign is the establishment of a clear, transparent, independent, accessible and time-bound mechanism for dealing with complaints against Judges and members of judicial and quasi-judicial tribunals, including allegations that disclose criminal offences.
According to GZLA, the existing framework appears fragmented and complicated to an ordinary litigant. A common citizen cannot reasonably be expected to navigate a maze of constitutional principles, judicial precedents, administrative procedures and questions concerning sanction or permission merely to ascertain where a complaint should be filed and who is legally required to act upon it.
The Association has therefore demanded a system under which a citizen or advocate can approach one clearly identified authority or statutory forum with supporting material. The complaint should thereafter be processed within prescribed timelines and the complainant should be informed of the decision and available remedies.
The proposed framework should clearly provide for:
(i) a designated authority for receiving complaints against serving and former judicial officers;
(ii) preliminary scrutiny within a fixed period;
(iii) an independent inquiry where the complaint is supported by prima facie material;
(iv) safeguards for judicial independence and protection against frivolous or malicious complaints;
(v) referral for criminal investigation wherever the material discloses a cognizable offence;
(vi) appropriate disciplinary or administrative action where judicial misconduct, though not criminal, is established;
(vii) a reasoned and time-bound decision upon the complaint;
(viii) an effective remedy against unjustified inaction; and
(ix) appropriate interim or corrective remedies in exceptional cases where continuing proceedings may cause serious and irreversible prejudice.
Citizens and Advocates Must Have an Effective Forum for Immediate Grievances
GZLA has expressed particular concern regarding situations where an advocate or litigant alleges that he is facing immediate and serious prejudice in ongoing judicial proceedings but has no simple and effective forum for obtaining timely redress.
According to the Association, asking such persons merely to wait for the final outcome and thereafter pursue an appeal may not provide an adequate answer in every exceptional situation, particularly where the complaint concerns matters going beyond an ordinary judicial error and alleges serious misconduct or abuse of authority.
GZLA has therefore demanded an independent grievance-redressal mechanism capable of providing an effective, speedy and legally structured remedy, without interfering with legitimate judicial independence or converting the grievance process into a substitute for statutory appeals and revisions.
The Association stated that a remedy which exists only on paper, or which is so complicated that an ordinary citizen cannot effectively invoke it, cannot adequately protect public confidence in the justice-delivery system.
State Cannot Remain a Silent Spectator Where Criminality Is Disclosed
GZLA has further taken the position that responsibility for enforcement of criminal law cannot simply be shifted onto individual citizens.
Where credible material disclosing a cognizable offence comes before the competent State authorities, the Association contends that those authorities must perform their obligations in accordance with law. The status of the person complained against cannot, by itself, justify indefinite inaction.
The Association has therefore demanded clearly defined responsibility and accountability of the concerned authorities so that complaints involving judicial officers are neither buried indefinitely nor dealt with selectively.
According to GZLA, equality before law must remain meaningful even when allegations concern persons occupying powerful constitutional or judicial positions.
Judicial Behaviour and Dignity of Advocates and Litigants
Another component of the proposed reform campaign concerns the manner in which advocates and litigants are treated within courtrooms.
GZLA stated that the enormous authority attached to judicial office necessarily carries a corresponding obligation of patience, dignity, courtesy and restraint. Advocates must be permitted to discharge their professional duties fearlessly and litigants must be treated with dignity.
The Association has accordingly proposed an effective grievance mechanism for serious and repeated complaints concerning humiliation, intimidation, abusive or demeaning conduct, denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing or other behaviour alleged to undermine the dignity of advocates and litigants, while ensuring that such a mechanism is not misused merely to challenge legitimate courtroom control or adverse judicial orders.
The objective, GZLA stated, should be to promote mutual institutional respect between the Bench and the Bar and thereby improve the quality of administration of justice.
First Phase: 5,000-Advocate Bike and Car Rally in Mumbai
The first major public programme of the movement is proposed to commence in Mumbai, where approximately 5,000 advocates are expected to participate in a large bike and car rally dedicated to judicial reforms and accountability.
The Association proposes to invite advocates from different Bar Associations and legal organisations to participate in the campaign.
The Mumbai programme is intended to serve as the beginning of a much wider national mobilisation rather than as a one-day event.
After Mumbai, similar peaceful and lawful rallies, conventions, meetings and awareness programmes are proposed in different States and major cities across India.
State-by-State Mobilisation Before Jantar Mantar
In the subsequent phase, GZLA proposes to establish State-level and city-level coordination for the campaign.
Advocates participating in the movement will seek to create awareness about proposed reforms, collect suggestions from members of the Bar and citizens, and build support for a comprehensive framework governing judicial accountability and grievance redressal.
The campaign will thereafter culminate in a large-scale peaceful gathering at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, where advocates and other participants from different parts of the country will place their demands before the concerned constitutional and governmental authorities.
GZLA stated that the objective is to transform individual grievances into a constructive programme of institutional reform through constitutional and democratic means.
The Association has chosen:
“Judiciary Theek Toh Sab Theek”
“न्यायपालिका ठीक तो सब ठीक”
as the central theme of the nationwide campaign.
According to GZLA, almost every constitutional right ultimately depends upon an effective judicial remedy. Whether the issue concerns life and liberty, property, business, employment, family rights, governmental action or fundamental freedoms, the judiciary is ultimately the institution to which citizens turn for protection.
Therefore, according to the Association, reforms which make the judiciary more efficient, transparent, accessible, accountable and citizen-friendly strengthen every other constitutional institution.
The Association has also adopted the mobilisation slogan:
“तुम देखोगे अपनी आँखों से, हम आ रहे हैं लाखों से।”
GZLA stated that the slogan represents its proposed nationwide mobilisation of advocates and citizens through peaceful, democratic and constitutional means for reform of the justice-delivery system.
Movement to Strengthen, Not Weaken, the Judiciary
GZLA has emphasised that the campaign should not be misunderstood as an attack upon Judges or upon the institution of the judiciary.
The Association stated that the overwhelming majority of judicial officers discharge extraordinarily difficult responsibilities under immense workloads and institutional constraints. A meaningful reform programme must therefore also address judicial vacancies, infrastructure, pendency, technological support, working conditions and other systemic deficiencies.
At the same time, institutional respect cannot require silence where credible allegations of serious misconduct arise.
According to GZLA:
“Judicial independence and judicial accountability are complementary principles. Independence protects an honest Judge from outside pressure; accountability protects the citizen and the institution itself from abuse. A strong judicial system requires both.”
The Association has therefore called upon advocates across India to participate in a peaceful, disciplined and constitutionally guided movement for judicial reforms.
The dates and detailed programme for the Mumbai bike and car rally, subsequent State-wise programmes and the final Jantar Mantar mobilisation will be announced separately by the GenZ Lawyers Association.