Justice Abhay Oka, who retired from the Supreme Court in May 2025, has said that the Constitution of India cannot be altered. Explaining the landmark Kesavananda Bharati judgment (1973) on the basic structure of the Constitution, he said, “This is one judgment that has saved democracy in India.” 

 

Speaking in a Governance Now Podcast, Justice Oka said the country's trial and district courts are collapsing under a pendency of 5.4 crore cases, largely because India has never come close to meeting a judge-to-population ratio the Supreme Court itself ordered in 2002. That order called for 50 judges per million residents within 20 years; more than two decades on, the figure stands at roughly 22. A 2017 study he oversaw found the courts short by at least 8,000 judges – of which, he said, only around 600 posts have since been created.

 

You can watch the conversation between Justice Oka and Geetanjali Minhas of Governance Now here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OafRt7uaRcU

 

Compounding the shortage, Justice Oka said, is poor court infrastructure outside major cities and the fact that government bodies – state, central and municipal corporations – remain the country's largest litigants, appealing nearly every adverse order rather than adopting clearer policies on when to let rulings stand. He also pointed to newer pressures: check-bouncing cases now make up roughly 30% of magistrate courts' criminal dockets in cities such as Mumbai, Delhi and Bengaluru, while a single matrimonial dispute can spawn as many as 20 related proceedings.

 

The delays, he argued, have constitutional consequences. Undertrial prisoners facing sentences of seven to twelve years sometimes remain jailed for several years awaiting trial – what he called "punishment without trial" and a violation of Article 21's right to life and liberty.

 

On judicial appointments, Justice Oka defended the collegium system against criticism that it is opaque, describing a multi-stage process involving state governments, an Intelligence Bureau background check and union law ministry review before names reach the Supreme Court collegium. His sharper criticism was reserved for the government's practice of sitting on cleared recommendations for nine to ten months at a time – a delay that, he said, discourages talented lawyers, whose legal practice dries up once their names are publicly listed as prospective judges, from accepting judgeships at all.

 

He also renewed calls for a fixed, published roster system in the Supreme Court, similar to the one already used in the High Courts, arguing it would remove discretion over which bench hears which case and bring greater transparency to listing.

 

On the environment, Justice Oka was unsparing. He criticised a 2023 amendment that replaced criminal penalties for pollution violations with a fines-only regime, and said "tree authorities" meant to scrutinise felling requests instead "act like a post office," rubber-stamping applications. He cited the felling of tens of thousands of mangroves for Mumbai's coastal road project as emblematic of a broader failure to weigh environmental cost against infrastructure gains, arguing that true development should be measured in affordable housing, schools, hospitals and water supply – not flyovers and metros alone.