Political Affiliation Is Not A Disqualification: In Defence Of Judicial Integrity

Let us be clear: political participation is not a crime. In a vibrant democracy, it is a right. The Constitution of India does not bar individuals with a political background from holding judicial office. To suggest otherwise is to rewrite the Constitution based on prejudice, not principle.

If the critics of Ms. Sathe’s appointment had even a passing familiarity with the history of India’s judiciary, they would know that some of our finest and most respected judges had active political careers or affiliations. Their judgments, far from reflecting bias, demonstrated an unwavering commitment to constitutional values, social justice, and judicial independence.

Consider Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer, a towering figure of Indian jurisprudence. A minister in the first Communist government of Kerala and a proud card-holding member of the Communist Party of India, Justice Iyer brought to the bench a deep understanding of the law as a tool for social transformation. His judgments elevated the constitutional rights of the poor, the marginalized, and the voiceless—hardly the work of a partisan ideologue.

Take Justice Baharul Islam, who served as a Congress Rajya Sabha MP before being appointed to the Gauhati High Court, rose to become its Chief Justice, and was later elevated to the Supreme Court. After retirement, he returned to Parliament on a Congress ticket. Yet his judgments have stood the test of time, unmarred by partisanship.

Justice K. S. Hegde, after serving on the Supreme Court, was elected to the Rajya Sabha on a Congress ticket and went on to become the Speaker of the Lok Sabha under the Janata Party. Does that mean his judicial career was tainted by politics? Absolutely not. It means he was trusted by multiple parties for his integrity and intellect—both on and off the bench.

Then there is Justice Ranganath Misra, a former Chief Justice of India, who joined the Rajya Sabha as a Congress member after retirement. Or Justice Ranjan Gogoi, whose father was a Chief Minister and Finance Minister of Assam. Or Justice Dilip Bhosale, whose father served as Chief Minister of Maharashtra. Or Justice Ferdino Rebello, who was a Member of the Legislative Assembly from Goa, Daman and Diu before ascending to the High Court.

Were these judges not worthy of office because of their political past or family background? Should we erase their contributions because they once participated in the democratic process? That would be an insult to the judiciary—and to democracy itself.

Let it be said in no uncertain terms: judicial integrity is not the exclusive preserve of the politically neutral, nor is political engagement the hallmark of judicial bias. What matters is whether a judge, once appointed, demonstrates fidelity to the Constitution, commitment to justice, and impartiality in decision-making. The judges listed above—and many others like them—exemplified those virtues.

To reduce the conversation on judicial appointments to a question of political pasts is to do grave injustice to the institution. It risks disqualifying individuals not for any lack of merit, but for daring to exercise their democratic rights. Such attacks are not about judicial propriety—they are about ideological policing.

Judges are not born in a vacuum. They emerge from society—its courts, its universities, its public life. Some have family in politics; others have held office themselves. These facts are not disqualifications. They are markers of a life engaged with public service and constitutional values.

What makes a good judge is not whether they once held a party card. It is legal competence, moral courage, independence of mind, and an unwavering commitment to justice. Ms. Aarti Sathe’s record should be judged by these standards—not by innuendo or guilt by association.

It is high time we stopped conflating political biography with judicial bias. If we continue down this path, we won’t just lose good candidates—we will corrode the very ideals of constitutional democracy.