The Indian Lawyers and Human Rights Activists Association (ILHRA) Demands Immediate Judicial Inquiry and Removal Proceedings under Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968
As per the Constituent Assembly Debates led by Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, and as consistently upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, a Judge who breaches the solemn oath of office ceases, in law and in spirit, to remain a Judge from that moment onward. Such a person, having violated the foundational promise to uphold the Constitution and the law “without fear or favour, affection or ill-will,” becomes unfit to hold any public office or exercise judicial authority.
It is in this grave constitutional context that the complaint against Chief Justice Shri Chandrashekhar assumes historic significance — for it alleges not a mere procedural lapse, but a complete betrayal of the judicial oath and an open defiance of the constitutional order which every Judge is duty-bound to protect.
New Delhi / Mumbai: The Indian Lawyers and Human Rights Activists Association (ILHRA), along with senior advocates and public representatives, has submitted a detailed representation to the Hon’ble President of India and the Department of Justice, seeking immediate constitutional and administrative action against Hon’ble Justice Shri Chandrashekhar, presently the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, for gross misconduct, breach of judicial oath, and wilful defiance of binding Supreme Court precedents.
The complaint, supported by documentary and electronic evidence (including video and audio materials), alleges that Chief Justice Chandrashekhar has repeatedly refused to follow or even consider Supreme Court judgments, has issued contradictory and discriminatory orders—granting reliefs to certain advocates while denying similar reliefs to others—and has even threatened advocates with arrest for citing judgments of the Supreme Court during court proceedings.
This conduct, according to the representation, amounts to a flagrant violation of
Article 14 (Right to Equality)
Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty)
Article 141 (Law declared by the Supreme Court to be binding on all courts)
Article 144 (Civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court) of the Constitution, and constitutes “misbehaviour” under Articles 124(4) and 218, warranting judicial inquiry and removal proceedings under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
The representation highlights that such behaviour not only violates the oath prescribed under Articles 124(6) and 219 of the Constitution but also undermines the very foundation of judicial impartiality, equality before law, and public confidence in the judiciary.
Instances Cited
(a) In Registrar, Nilamber Pitamber University v. State of Jharkhand (2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 1635), Justice Chandrashekhar himself held that “reasons form the soul of judicial decisions.”
(b) However, in a directly contradictory order dated 16.10.2025 (SMCP (Crl.) No. 01 of 2025), he declared that “there is no law which mandates the Court to consider the submissions or case laws relied upon by the parties.”
(c) Further, in Court on its Own Motion v. Rajiv Ranjan (2024 SCC OnLine Jhar 1224), he ruled that contempt proceedings must follow the Contempt of Courts Act. Yet in 2025, he relied on an overruled judgment (Pritam Pal Singh v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, 1992) to claim the Act was “not binding” on the High Court—an interpretation long rejected by three-judge Supreme Court benches.
The complaint of Mr. Satish Salian, father of the late Ms. Disha Salian, registered as Case No. PRSEC/E/2025/0061948, and that of the Indian Lawyers and Human Rights Activists Association (File No. PRSEC/E/2025/0061483), have both been officially received by the President’s Secretariat and transferred to the Department of Justice for appropriate action.
Legal and Constitutional Position
The Supreme Court in Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat (2024 SCC OnLine SC 298) ruled that any judge who refuses to apply the law laid down by the Supreme Court “betrays the trust reposed in him by the nation” and commits a breach of the judicial oath.
Multiple precedents, including S.P. Gupta v. President of India (AIR 1982 SC 149), Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020) 5 SCC 481, and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand(2008) 10 SCC 1, affirm that violation of judicial oath constitutes constitutional misbehaviour and renders the concerned judge unfit to hold public office.
The press note stresses that a Chief Justice threatening to detain advocates for citing Supreme Court law not only violates the constitutional hierarchy but also constitutes criminal contempt of the Supreme Court itself.
Demands Raised
The representation demands:
1. Immediate judicial inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968;
2. Withdrawal of all judicial work from Chief Justice Chandrashekhar pending inquiry;
3. Institution of criminal contempt proceedings for defiance of Supreme Court law; and
4. Constitutional action for breach of oath and abuse of office under Articles 124(4), 218, and 219.
Call for Restoring Public Faith
The signatories emphasize that this unprecedented situation demands swift and transparent intervention by the Hon’ble President of India, the Chief Justice of India, and the Department of Justice, to protect the sanctity of judicial office and reaffirm the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law.
If left unchecked, such conduct would irreparably damage the credibility of the judiciary, which is the last refuge of citizens seeking justice.
About The Indian Lawyers and Human Rights Activists Association (ILHRA): ILHRA is a collective of legal professionals and human rights advocates dedicated to upholding the rule of law, protecting constitutional values, and advocating for judicial accountability and transparency in India.
Ref: https://rashidkhanpathan.com/historic-complaint-filed-against-chief-justice-chandrashekhar-for-breach-of-judicial-oath-and-constitutional-defiance/
Also Read: