Who Will Judge the Judges? A Constitutional Reflection on Ambedkar Jayanti

As we observe the birth anniversary of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar - jurist, economist, social reformer, and the principal architect of the Indian Constitution - it is a moment to reflect not only on his legacy, but also on the living health of the institutions he helped shape. Among those institutions, the judiciary stands paramount: powerful, respected, and entrusted with the sacred duty of upholding the Constitution.

But in a constitutional democracy, even the highest offices must be open to reflection and reform. In that spirit, I ask: Who will judge the judges?

The Expanding Reach of Judicial Oversight

In recent times, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has taken steps to ensure constitutional functionaries - such as the Governors and now even the Hon’ble President - adhere to timelines and act with administrative accountability. This demonstrates a robust and vigilant judiciary, unafraid to uphold constitutional duties.

However, the question that troubles many scholars, citizens, and administrators alike is this: Shouldn’t the judiciary be equally answerable to the ideals it upholds for others?

While constitutional offices are being held to time-bound responsibilities and moral scrutiny, the judiciary itself faces growing concerns - massive case backlogs, procedural opacity, and in some cases, serious allegations that do not seem to attract the same moral urgency.

The Silent Chambers of Self-Scrutiny

We have recently witnessed instances where enormous sums of unexplained money have been recovered from the residence compound of a sitting High Court judge. And yet, there is no official institutional introspection, no commentary from the judiciary, and no visible sign of moral concern.

Can such silence coexist with the moral authority the judiciary exercises over others?

Dr. Ambedkar warned against the tyranny of unaccountable power, even in the noblest of institutions. For him, constitutional morality was not merely about the legality of actions but about the ethical culture that underpins institutions. No pillar of democracy should be immune to public accountability - certainly not the one entrusted with interpreting the Constitution itself.

Independence Must Not Become Insulation

There is a clear distinction between judicial independence, which is essential for fair adjudication, and institutional insulation, which shields one from criticism or reform. When the judiciary asserts the right to interpret and enforce constitutional boundaries on the executive and the legislature, it must also accept a parallel responsibility: to examine its own role, practices, and omissions.

Public trust in the judiciary depends not just on verdicts, but on visible integrity. Justice must not only be done - it must be seen to be done. And that includes the courage to be self-reflective.

Towards a Culture of Shared Accountability

This is not a call for confrontation, but a call for constitutional coherence. When the judiciary speaks of probity, transparency, and ethical governance, it must also look within. As citizens and stakeholders in the democratic process, we owe it to the Republic to ask difficult questions- not in a spirit of defiance, but with faith in our institutions.

As we pay homage to Babasaheb Ambedkar, let us renew our commitment to building institutions that are not only constitutionally powerful but also morally luminous.

A democracy that cannot question its judges cannot call itself truly free. A judiciary that cannot reflect upon itself cannot claim to be the final guardian of justice.

Let this Ambedkar Jayanti be not only a celebration of his birth, but also a reaffirmation of his vision: that no authority is above constitutional ethics - not even those who interpret them.

Kunwar Shekhar Vijendra | Co-Founder & Chancellor, Shobhit University | Chairman, National Education Council, ASSOCHAM