At a recent event hosted by the New York City Bar Association, I moderated a discussion, “Judicial Independence at Risk: Reflections from the U.S. and India,” that brought together former Odisha High Court Chief Justice S Muralidhar; UN Special Rapporteur Margaret Satterthwaite; retired US District Judge Shira Scheindlin; and Samah Sisay, an attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights.
Across vastly different contexts, the message was the same: judicial independence—the cornerstone of any constitutional democracy—is under siege.
India’s Judiciary: Strained & Silenced
Justice Muralidhar spoke with the courage that often vanishes in times of institutional fragility. Outlining the factors deepening the crisis of judicial independence in India, he named “executive interference, weak institutional accountability, the absence of critical voices from the Bar, and inadequate infrastructure”.
He drew attention to India’s poor ranking in the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index (86th out of 143 countries)—a decline reflected in other international reports. Earlier this year, the International Commission of Jurists noted that “the independence of the judiciary in India is under heavy strain”.
The UN Special Rapporteur, in her communication to the government of India, raised concerns over judicial appointments, transfers, post-retirement roles, and the underrepresentation of women and minorities. Another report by Guernica 37 Chambers and the South Asia Justice Campaign found that India’s Supreme Court shows “an appearance of partiality and lack of independence” in key human rights cases.
Recalling when former Supreme Court Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi presided over a matter concerning allegations of sexual harassment against himself, Justice Muralidhar expressed concern that the Bar remained silent.
He added that when Gogoi was nominated to the Rajya Sabha, “the Bar Council of India through its Chairman put out a statement extolling it”. That silence, he warned, reflects a deeper moral drift. “Independence of Bar will come from lawyers believing in constitutional values and human rights”. His words are a timely reminder that a timid Bar cannot sustain an independent Bench.
A Global Pattern Of Erosion
The Indian experience is not an anomaly—it is part of a pattern, observed in other jurisdictions.
Margaret Satterthwaite, the UN Special Rapporteur, reminded the audience that similar struggles are unfolding worldwide. She cited Poland, where thousands of judges in their robes took to the streets to protest political control over the courts. “I think that was so so powerful to see because of its unusual nature, and because it did take this brave step for judges to come out and do that,” she said.
Noting the global pattern and what solidarity looks like in action, she added, “I think it is really important that we listen to people in various countries that may have similar dynamics but different contexts, and I think we can learn a lot from them. I also think that solidarity across countries is really important.”
She also warned of a subtler danger: efforts by governments to fragment the legal profession. “I think it's really important that we don’t fall for that divide and conquer attempts that happen by any powerful autocratic government.”
Her call for greater global solidarity among bar associations and lawyers’ groups to defend judicial independence resonates sharply in India, where the Bar seems increasingly divided in challenging executive interference with the judiciary.
The American Paradox
In the US, the crisis takes a different form but stems from similar roots—polarisation, politicisation, and the corrosion of respect for judicial authority. Judge Shira Scheindlin reflected on this transformation. “What we are seeing for the first time is that sitting judges anonymously have begun to speak up,” she said, describing the unprecedented unease within the judiciary.
She said the legal profession could not stand by. “We will speak out when judges are attacked inappropriately.” And bar associations, she urged, must “speak out in defense of judges when they are attacked for their opinions”. Even in mature democracies, institutional resilience depends on the courage of individuals to defend principle over partisanship.
When Lawyers Become Targets
If judges are the system’s visible guardians, lawyers are its last line of defense—and they too are under threat. Samah Sisay of the Center for Constitutional Rights described how representing vulnerable clients can now put lawyers at risk. Legal professionals, she said, are being targeted through doxing, harassment, and funding restrictions, a pattern visible in India too.
Referring to the case of Mahmoud Khalil, she said, “We had to go through various security training to scrub from the internet our personal information and family information.” In another case involving Badar Suri—an Indian national—she recounted, “When I reached out to an Indian lawyer regarding this case and requested an affidavit, they said, ‘they can’t do that.’” The fear of retaliation, she explained, has become pervasive.
Sisay also warned that repression is now bureaucratized through attacks on funding and reputation. “Now what we are seeing is legal organizations are being listed in these ‘reports’ that are being put together by these research institutes that are just again arms of the political branch.” Such tactics of hiding behind paperwork and respectability resonate in the Indian context, where the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) has been grossly misused to silence critical voices.
Why The World Should Pay Attention
The discussion underscored that the crisis of judicial independence is not confined to one geography. Whether through executive overreach in India, partisan assault in the United States, or institutional capture in Eastern Europe, the mechanisms of control differ—but the result is the same: a compromised and weak judiciary.
Justice Muralidhar’s warning rings beyond India’s borders. When he speaks of a “deepening crisis,” he is not merely diagnosing India’s judiciary but describing a global ailment. Satterthwaite’s plea for solidarity across countries is both pragmatic and moral—autocracies learn from one another; defenders of justice must do the same.
What makes the Indian experience instructive is how institutional decline coexists with democratic ritual. Courts still sit, judgments are still written—but the spirit of independence is hollowed out. Kim Lane Scheppele calls this “autocratic legalism,” where autocrats “carefully preserve the shell of the prior liberal state—the same institutions, the same ceremonies, an overall appearance of rights protection—but in the meantime they hollow out its moral core.”
When bar associations celebrate transgressions rather than censure them and when lawyers fear to sign affidavits, the system’s form remains, but its function dies.
The Duty To Speak
The takeaway from that evening at the New York City Bar was clear: silence is not neutrality—it is surrender. The “Thousand Robes March” in Poland, and lower court judges criticising the Supreme Court in the US, show that extraordinary situations demand extraordinary measures.
Yet sitting judges may not be free to speak, constrained by judicial propriety. This is why Justice Muralidhar’s observation that “independence of Bar will come from lawyers believing in constitutional values and human rights”, captures the essence of the fight.
Judicial independence cannot be imposed from above; it must be cultivated from below—through lawyers who defend unpopular causes, scholars who challenge orthodoxy, and citizens who demand accountability.
The struggle is global, but so too is the solidarity that can sustain it.
(Gunjan Singh is a human rights lawyer.)
Get exclusive access to new databases, expert analyses, weekly newsletters, book excerpts and new ideas on democracy, law and society in India. Subscribe to Article 14.