It Is Not True That Justice Is Done Only If Judgment Is Against Government: Justice Abhay Oka
Justice Oka also said during this speech that he does not intend to do any adjudicatory work, including arbitrations.
Retired Supreme Court Judge, Justice Abhay S. Oka, said today, while speaking at a farewell function organised by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, that it is not true that justice is done only if the judgment in a case is against those in power or the government.
Justice Oka, who retired on May 24, 2025, also said that he does not intend to do any adjudicatory work, including arbitration, and that he had applied for sanad only to be able to give legal advice when sought for. The Bar Council presented him with the sanad during the function. He also said that he would like to do the work of teaching, but not any work as a lawyer, except advisory work.
Interestingly, while speaking from the ceremonial bench assembled on the occasion of his retirement, Chief Justice BR Gavai had said that Justice Oka would not accept any post-retirement assignment. However, Justice Oka had said on the same occasion that he wants time to reflect on the question of post-retirement assignments.
Justice Oka said today in his speech in Marathi, "It is not true that it is justice only if you decide against those in power/ the government (राज्यकर्ता). At times, you have to decide in favour of the government if the decision falls within the four corners of the Constitution."
The function held at Pune in association with the Pune Bar Association was also attended by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court, Justices Revati Mohite Dere, Makarand Karnik and MS Sonak of the Bombay High Court.
Justice Oka said, "I am of the firm view that a judge should never think about the consequences of his decisions or where he will reach in his career. When a judge passes a judgment, he should only think of one thing- that is whether the decision is in accordance with law, whether it falls withtin the four corners of the Constitution, and if the answer to both these question is in the affirmative, it is the judge's duty to pass that judgment. The judge should not think about what will be the consequences of that decision, what will those in power or the opposition say about that decision. ...Whenever I go to judicial academies to train judges, I always tell them that you should only consider whether your decision is in accordance with the law. Dont consider whether your decision will hurt someone or if you will lose some post that you may otherwise get".
Justice Oka also added that a judge should never try to make lawyers happy.
He started his remarks on the subject by saying, "I have an opinion on how judges should behave, and it is my duty to mention the same. Once you take the oath as a judge, you should not for a second think about your future prospects, as to what you will get in future. The day a judge thinks about whether he will get a post, he will not be able to function as a judge".
At the beginning of his speech, while thanking the Bar Council for speaking about his judgments and while saying that it would not be appropriate for him to comment on his own judgments, he said that upon retirement, he was more concerned about judgments that he could not deliver than the ones he delivered.
He said that he was able to work in the Supreme Court on every working day except May 22, on which day there were around 40 to 50 important cases pertaining to rights under Article 21, which he could not decide. He said that he will always regret the same.
He said that Judges usually view retirement as freedom, but that he disagrees since, according to him, there is no other job as pious as delivering justice. "There is a tinge of sadness in my mind, that I will not be able to hereafter perform the pious duty of delivering justice", he quoted from his earlier retirement speech.
He said that when it comes to the environment, judges should take strong decisions, and that they should ignore criticism that the decision is harsh.
He also said that the delay in making appointments as per recommendations of the Collegium should be avoided, and that the delay results in good candidates refusing to accept the offer of judgeship.
He said that the trend among lawyers district judiciary in Maharashtra, to abstain from work for a day when a senior member of the Bar passes away, should stop. He said that in such situations, the members of the Bar must work harder to honour the departed colleague.
