Justice Deepak Gupta: "Black Sheep in Judiciary Increasing" — Why India Cannot Be Free Without a Fearless Judiciary
EduLaw EditorialLegal UpdatesIn a stinging commentary published in The Tribune, former Supreme Court Justice Deepak Gupta warns that the growing presence of "black sheep" on the bench is eroding public trust. His essay confronts uncomfortable truths about judicial independence, prolonged undertrial detention, and what he calls a drift toward majoritarianism in India's constitutional courts. No country can call itself truly free without a judiciary that is both independent and fearless. That blunt assertion sits at the heart of a provocative essay by former Supreme Court Justice Deepak Gupta, published in The Tribune on September 7, 2026, under the title "The True Meaning of Freedom." The piece has set off a nationwide conversation about the health of India's justice system — and for good reason. Coming from a judge who spent nearly half a century in the legal profession, including service on the highest court in the land, the observations carry an institutional weight that outside commentary simply cannot match. Justice Gupta does not mince words. He writes that while the vast majority of judges remain people of integrity, "the number of black sheep is increasing." He frames this not as an attack on the institution but as a call for introspection directed at judges "at the highest level." In his assessment, even a small number of compromised judges inflicts disproportionate damage on the legitimacy of the entire judicial process. A litigant who believes a decision was influenced by political loyalty, money, caste, or personal connections does not merely lose a case — that litigant loses faith in the rule of law itself. The essay goes far beyond a single quotable phrase. Justice Gupta argues that true independence demands more than the absence of a colonial ruler. Citizens must be able to speak, think, and dissent without fear. They must enjoy equality regardless of caste or religion. And the institution tasked with guarding those guarantees — the judiciary — must be staffed by judges possessing three non-negotiable qualities: integrity, intellect, and what he memorably calls "a spine." He invokes the oath that every judge takes, to act "without fear or favour," and questions whether that oath is being honoured in practice. One of the sharpest sections of the essay addresses personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Justice Gupta observes that although "bail, not jail" is the oft-quoted rule, the reality inside Indian prisons tells a different story. He points to the staggering ratio of undertrials to convicts — roughly three to one — and argues that the criminal process itself has become the punishment. He cites the case of Umar Khalid, who has spent more than six years behind bars without the commencement of trial, to illustrate a systemic failure in protecting the right to speedy justice. He also references the prolonged detention of Sonam Wangchuk and questions why the Supreme Court repeatedly adjourned the habeas corpus petition instead of ruling on its legality. These are not abstract constitutional quibbles. They are, in Justice Gupta's framing, evidence that courts have become "mute spectators" to liberty violations. Equally provocative is his charge that courts at every level are drifting toward majoritarianism. Democracy, he concedes, is majority rule. But majoritarianism — where the voice of the other side is silenced — is "anathema to democracy." He traces a troubling arc from the Ram Janmabhoomi verdict, which expressly held that other place-of-worship disputes would not be reopened, to the subsequent Gyanvapi mosque order permitting an archaeological survey, which he contends has "opened the floodgates of litigation" and risks fracturing communal harmony. He also highlights what he views as unequal treatment in bail decisions, pointing to contrasting outcomes for members of different communities accused of comparable conduct on the river Ganga. Justice Gupta locates the root of these problems in the collegium system of judicial appointments. He calls the process "totally opaque," noting that decisions of enormous constitutional consequence are taken without stated reasons. He observes that recent elevations to the Supreme Court and High Court chief justiceships have overwhelmingly drawn from upper-caste candidates, despite the availability of highly capable judges from other communities and religions. He is careful to add that he casts no aspersion on those appointed, but insists that the Supreme Court "must have representation from all sections of society" if it is to command the confidence of the entire nation. The essay closes with a warning that doubles as a plea. Public trust in the judiciary, though still higher than trust in the legislature or the executive, is "waning." If that trust disappears entirely, Justice Gupta writes, the judiciary becomes irrelevant — and "where there is no democracy, the people can never be free or independent." He quotes J. William Fulbright: "In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith." It is important to note, as a matter of legal accuracy, that Justice Gupta's essay is a published opinion piece by a retired judge — not a Supreme Court judgment or binding precedent. He retired from the bench in 2020, and his observations reflect his personal constitutional assessment. Nevertheless, when a former member of the highest court publicly states that judicial courage is in decline and that the number of compromised judges is growing, the legal community and the public at large owe it to themselves to listen carefully. The strength of any judiciary is ultimately measured not by the cases in which it agrees with popular opinion, but by the cases in which it stands against it. An ordinary citizen walking into a courtroom must be able to believe, genuinely and without reservation, that the Constitution will protect her rights regardless of her faith, caste, economic status, or political views. That belief is the real capital of the judiciary. Once it is spent, Justice Gupta warns, no amount of institutional architecture can easily rebuild it. His essay does not offer easy answers, but it asks the right questions — questions that every judge, lawyer, law student, and citizen in a constitutional democracy must eventually confront. The black sheep may still be a minority. The question is whether the institution has the will to ensure they remain one.