Will Supreme Court's prompt adoption of "austerity measures", National Judicial Data Grid pave way for endless surveillance of all judicial institutions like other institutions?

"

"The ultimate safeguard of the independence of lawyers lies in the legal system and in society ... In a society and a legal system in which the rule of law and human rights do not find the pride of place, lawyers are relegated to an inferior position and their independence, honour and dignity can be violated with impunity. Equally, an independent judiciary is an essential guarantee of an independent legal profession. The independence of the judiciary and the independence of lawyers are interdependent and complementary."

-Dr. L.M. Singhvi, UN Special Rapporteur 

 

Is Judiciary becoming more executive minded than the executive?   

Responding to representations from the Supreme Court Bar Association, the Court has clarified that while advocates are encouraged to continue appearing via video conferencing in matters listed on miscellaneous and partial working days, those unable to join online for unavoidable reasons may appear physically before courts functioning in person. Patna High Court is yet to provide similar relief. Earlier, Patna High Court issued Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on May 16, 2026 regarding implementation of certain "austerity measures" in light of email dated May 15, 2026 received from Supreme Court of India through Letter dated May 15, 2026 from the Chief Justice, Supreme Court of India to the Chief Justice, Patna High Court (Reference: Circular of Supreme Court of India, F.No. 183/22/2026-SG, New Delhi, May 15, 2026 issued in view of Office Memorandum signed by Shri Ngulkhosat Under Secretary (Administration), Capacity Building Commission (CBC), National Programme for Civil Services Capacity Building (NPCSCB) – Mission Karmayogi launched in September 2020. The Mission Karmayogi aims to transform approximately 1.5 crore government officials across the Centre, the States, and the local bodies. Does it include judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts in its ambit? Are Chief Justice of India and Chief Justices of High Courts deemed Pillar Heads? Does it not further the cause of executivisation of high judiciary? Will austerity measures be used to make higher judiciary totally subservient to executive officials for Mission Karmyogi under CBC?  

The Office Memorandum on subject of Internal instructions in the light of recent developments in the country-Reg reads:"The undersigned is directed to inform that the Pillar Heads may devise a Roster of resources under their control permitting Work From Home upto two days per week ensuring that at least 50% of the staff are available in the office. The Roster thus formed may be shared with Admin. Further the Pillar Heads may kindly instruct the resources who were permitted 'Work From Home' to be available on telephone and be ready to attend office, in case of requirement, at any time. The Pillar Heads shall also ensure timely completion of the various tasks assigned to them, adhering to these instructions. 2. In the light of recent developments, the Pillar Heads are also requested not to recommend for organizing any physical events/workshops within Delhi or outside Delhi or depute any resource for travel outside Delhi but make all efforts to convene all the requisite meetings through VCs/online mode. 3. For any deviation in above instructions on functional grounds, prior approval of Secretary, CBC would be required. 4. The above instructions must be complied by all concerned, with immediate effect and till further orders." The Office Memorandum has been sent to "All Pillar Heads and Personnel of CBC with copy to "All personnel working with CBC". It is claimed that CBC is the custodian of the Mission Karmayogi framework, to drive civil service reforms through capacity building and competency-based learning. 

 

As per Patna High Court's SOP, the matters listed from May 18, 2026 to June 4, 2026 is being heard only by Video Conferencing. Joint Registrar List, Registrar (1T) and Registrar (Establishment) has been directed to co-ordinate with each other to take necessary steps in this regard. Advocate are entitled to appear without restriction before the High Court through a Video Conferencing facility. However, the Patna High Court may regulate the participation of a litigant [or any other person] as per its Rules or Practice Directions issued time to time. The links for each Court is being provided in the daily Cause List. which is published on the website of the High Court. SOP reads: "4. All the cases must be e-filed as per the E-fling Rules. 5. Ld. Advocates and Advocate Clerks are requested to keep their footfalls in the High Court premises to minimum. 6. If the Stamp reporter finds a case defective, the same shall be notified and communicated to the Ld. Advocate through email. Ld. Advocates are requested to remove defects in such a manner that the physical footfall at Hon'ble Patna High Court is kept to a minimum." 

 

The SOP reads: "7. While accessing the virtual platform, Ld. Advocate shall be required to enter details like name, item number, party for which she/he/they are appearing, or such other information as required by the High Court. If appearing in more than one matter, case numbers of all matters shall be provided. 8. Participants should avoid using multiple devices at remote location to eliminate the chance of echo/ disturbance. 9. The Ld. Advocate must be dressed in professional attire. If the Ld. Advocate is not dressed in professional attire, in case of non-compliance, the right of audience may be withdrawn by the Court. Similarly. a party in person must be appropriately dressed. 10. Court proceedings conducted through video conferencing are judicial proceedings for all purposes, and all protocols applicable to physical courts shall apply to virtual proceedings. I1. Mobile phones of all participants shall be switched off or kept in aeroplane mode during the proceedings. 12. Ld. Advocate/parties in person may log in from their office, residence, conference room. etc., but not from a vehicle such as car. The remote location should be quiet and have sufficient internet connectivity. The camera must remain switched on during the Court proceedings. All participants should endeavour to look into the camera, remain attentive and refrain from engaging in any other activity during the proceedings. 13. Only the Ld. Advocate or duly authorized person in the matter would be entitled to address the Court. The Court coordinator may mute or unmute any other participant(s). 14. Ld. Advocates/ participants shall regulate their microphones to avoid disturbing the court proceedings. At the time of joining, the microphone should be kept muted. The microphone may be unmated only when the matter is called out. The Court may direct the court coordinator to mute microphone in case of  disturbance." 

 

The SOP states: "I5. If any participant indulges in conduct considering inappropriate, they may be excluded from the VC proceedings, and action as directed by the Court may be taken. 16. No recording of the court proceedings is permitted, except with prior leave granted by the Court. 17. Ld. Advocates/participants may seek assistance through the chat facility, wherever available. The facility shall be used only for technical assistance or for inquiring about the item number of the case being heard. The Court coordinator shall respond on a best effort basis. 18. Ld. Advocates may submit a memo of appearance in the manner notified by the concerned Court. 19. Ld. Advocates may mention their case(s) via Video Conference before the concerned Hon'ble Motion Bench. Upon mentioning, the Hon'ble Court mav assign appropriate time for virtual hearing. Ld. Counsels may join proceeding through the link available on the Patna High Court Website. 20. If the number of participants exceeds or is likely to exceed the permitted limit, the Court Co-ordinator may remove viewers not participating in the Court proceedings. Ld. Advocates/litigants appearing in later items may also be requested to log out. 21 In case of in-camera proceedings, virtual hearings may be restricted to the parties and/or their Ld. Advocates. 22. Court Masters should specifically mark in CIS the cases heard through virtual mode for future reference."

 

The High Court's SOP further reads: "23. All the Technical Assistants of the respective Courts shall create the permanent VC links and post it on the website through their designated login. They shall ensure that the hybrid system remains operational in Court rooms on every working day before 8 A.M. without fail. 24. The respective Court Master shall ensure compliance with points 19 and 20 above. The Court Master Section In-Charge shall oversee the entire operation and act as Nodal person disseminating directions relating to the VC hearings in this regard to avoid any inconvenience to Hon'ble Court. 25. The present SOP shall be in addition to the Video Conferencing Rules notified by the High Court and not in derogation thereof." 

 

In the backdrop of Supreme Court's circular dated May 18, 026, there is a compelling logic for Patna High Court to provide similar reprieve to those who are unable to join online for unavoidable reasons may appear physically before courts functioning in person.

 

Executivisation of judiciary after executivisation of legislature

  

Is it impossible for executive to take total control of higher judiciary by amalgamating the austerity measures of CBC with National Judicial Data Grid which was inaugurated by the 40th Chief Justice of India P Sathasivam along with the 30th law minister Kapil Sibal at Supreme Court on August 7, 2013? The report of the Task Force for preparation of the Policy Document on Identity and Access Management under National e-Governance Programme submitted in April 2007 revealed that "National UID Project has been initiated, with Voter ID Numbers and BPL households in the first instance." The report disclosed that each registered judicial court has a UID number at Subordinate Courts, High Court and Supreme Court. This initiative seemed to be part of profiling and surveillance of judicial institutions and its officers. Notably, Wipro Ltd. was assigned the task of preparing the "UIDAI Strategic Vision: Creating a Unique Identity Number for every Resident of India" around the same period by the Processes Committee of the Planning Commission in July 2006. Its report talked about "Citizen Identities" and "Owner of identities". These initiatives pave the way for unending and endless indiscriminate surveillance. The path being traversed by National Judicial Data Grid, a database of orders, judgments and case details of 18,735 computerised District and Subordinate Courts which has created as an online platform under the eCourts Project, has reached the stage of launch of the Interoperable Criminal Justice System, which seeks to integrate and make data interoperable between different institutions, such as police, prisons and courts, involved in the criminal justice system. This seems to be the path of extinction of separation of powers.

Notably, it came to light that the audio feed of the Rajya Sabha is under the control of the Central Public Works Department (CPWD), Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs. It came to light when Rajya Sabha proceedings was disrupted during the passage of three controversial agricultural bills, which has now been repealed due to world' biggest farmers' protest. In a letter to the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, CPWD attempted to explain that the 20-minute audio blackout on September 20, 2020 between 13:05 and 13:35 hours. 

 

Jagdeep Dhankhar, the 14th Chairman of Rajya Sabha, the second highest constitutional office in the country abruptly resigned from his post on July 21, 2025, on the opening day of the monsoon session of Parliament. A large part of the day was business as usual for Chairman of Rajya Sabha. For over an hour after Parliament convened, he was present in the Rajya Sabha during which time he allowed Leader of the Opposition Mallikarjun  Kharge to mention the opposition’s demand for a debate on the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor. There was a heated exchange of words between Kharge and Leader of the HouseJ.P. Nadda. Chairman of Rajya Sabha chaired a meeting of the Business Advisory Committee (BAC) of the Rajya Sabha at 12:30 pm. At 3:53 pm, the Press Information Bureau issued a press release stating that Chairman of Rajya Sabha would leave for Jaipur the July 22 to meet the newly elected committee members of the Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Association of India at the Rambagh Palace. The press release too indicated that until then his resignation was not on the horizon. At 4:07 pm, Chairman of Rajya Sabha informed the Rajya Sabha of the notice he had received seeking the impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma. “Honourable members, I need to inform you that I have received notice of motion... to constitute a statutory committee for removal of Justice Yashwant Varma, judge of the High Court of Allahabad. It has been received by me today. It is signed by more than 50 members of the Council of States, and thus it meets the numerical requirement for setting in motion a process for removal of a High Court judge”. These words led to his abrupt resignation. This was the last time he spoke in the Rajya Sabha. It all began with the discovery of unaccounted cash at an outhouse attached to Justice Varma's official residence in Delhi during a fire-fighting operation on March 14, 2025, while he was serving as a judge of the Delhi High Court.  

 

Coincidentally, personnel from world' biggest Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Union Ministry of Home Affairs is deployed in the Rajya Sabha. 

 

Significantly, the Judges Inquiry Committee investigating allegations concerning Justice Varma submitted its report to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla at the Parliament House on May 18, 2026. ​It was presented in accordance with the statutory requirements under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The committee was constituted on August 12, 2025 by the Lok Sabha Speaker to inquire into allegations against High Court judge Justice Varma. The report will be laid before both Houses of Parliament in due course. The Presiding Officer of the Judges Inquiry Committee, Supreme Court Judge Justice Aravind Kumar, along with the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Senior Advocate of the Karnataka High Court B.V. Acharya, presented the Report of the Judges Inquiry Committee to the Speaker.

 

Notably, on March 22, 2025, Supreme Court had issued a press release stating that it had also constituted a three member Committee consisting of Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, and Justice Anu Sivaraman, Judge of the Karnataka High Court, for conducting an inquiry into the allegations against Justice Varma, a sitting Judge of the Delhi High Court. The Chief Justice of Delhi High Court of Delhi was asked not to assign any judicial work to Justice Varma. The press release had annexed the Report submitted by the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court of Delhi, along with the response of Justice Varma, and other documents redacting some portions and names "to maintain confidentiality, etc.". It had also annexed photographs and the video as shared by Commissioner of Police, Delhi with the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court. 

The in-house committee of the Supreme had submitted its report to the Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna. After Justice Varma declined the Chief Justice's advice to resign, the report was forwarded to the President and the Prime Minister for further action. Justice Varma pursued legal challenges during the course of the proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed his petition challenging the in-house inquiry and the recommendation for his removal. A subsequent challenge to the Lok Sabha Speaker's decision constituting the statutory inquiry committee was also rejected in early 2026. It is noteworthy that Allahabad High Court website still lists Justice Varma as one of present judges at Allahabad. A list of permanent judges published by the Department of Justice, dated 1 May 2026, places Justice Varma records his date of retirement as January 5, 2031. He had taken an oath as judge of the Allahabad High Court on April 5, 2025. Justice Varma resigned in April 9, 2026, pending the inquiry. Justice Varma submitted his resignation to the President. Justice Varma has denied ownership of the money and any wrongdoing. Unless the report of the Lok Sabha's committee sheds light on the source of the cash to complete the chain of custody of the cash and establishes its relationship with any case which was being heard by Justice Varma as judge of the Delhi Court, it cannot be deemed credible.  

The million dollar question is:Was the cash found at Justice Varma's residence planted to send a warning to all the judges entire judiciary? Has this aspect been examined by the three reports which have submitted? In movies across the world this aspect of planting incriminating material to frame someone became so obvious that the film directors were forced to document this phenomena. 

  

By now fabrication, illegality and unconstitutionality are no more surprising. Why has Lok Sabha been functioning without its Deputy Speaker, the second-highest-ranking authority of the Lok Sabha in violation of Article 93 of the Constitution of India since June 19, 2019. Who has killed the institution of Deputy Speaker of India? Will it be difficult to kill the institution of judges by hundred cuts? Is it not true that amidst the decay of all the institutions, judiciary still has the public image of being better than the executive? Are there vested interests working to undermine the clean image of judiciary?