The Former Judges' Forum has publicly questioned the conduct of some judges and the role of judicial leadership, expressing serious concern over the disputes currently playing out within the judiciary. In a press release, the Forum warned that the independence, impartiality, neutrality and dignity of the judiciary are being called into question, and urged the bodies concerned to pay attention. It also demanded an investigation into the judges who are under suspicion, stressing that the credibility of the judiciary must be protected, as Nagarik News reported.

Statement Flags Conduct of Judges and Role of Judicial Leadership

The press release is unusually blunt for a body drawn from within the judicial fraternity. It questions the behaviour of certain judges while also taking aim at the role of the judiciary's leadership, indicating that the Forum believes responsibility for the current situation extends beyond individual judges to those at the top of the institution.

According to the statement, the disputes within the judiciary are no longer a matter that can be brushed aside as an internal affair. The Forum framed its intervention as an effort to draw the attention of the bodies concerned before the damage to public confidence grows deeper. That the warning comes from former judges gives it particular weight. The Forum speaks with direct knowledge of how the judiciary works, and its members are unlikely to raise questions about judicial conduct lightly. By going public, the Forum has effectively signalled that the disagreements and suspicions inside the institution carry implications for the justice system as a whole.

Independence, Impartiality and Dignity at Stake

At the heart of the Forum's statement is a warning that the core values on which the judiciary stands are being brought into doubt. The press release points to four of them:

  • Independence: the ability of judges to decide matters freely, without pressure or influence from any quarter.
  • Impartiality: the assurance that cases are judged strictly on their merits, without favour to any party.
  • Neutrality: the expectation that the judiciary stands apart from political and other competing interests.
  • Dignity: the respect the institution commands in the eyes of the public.

The Forum said these values are being called into question amid the ongoing disputes, and it described the situation as a matter of serious concern. Its message to the concerned bodies was direct: pay attention. In the Forum's view, allowing the situation to drift would only deepen the doubts now attaching to the institution.

Public trust sits at the centre of that warning. A judiciary may deliver sound judgments, but if litigants and the wider public begin to believe that outcomes are shaped by improper conduct, the institution's authority weakens with every ruling it hands down. The Forum's statement reflects precisely that anxiety: suspicion, once allowed to spread, does not remain confined to a few individuals but attaches itself to the institution itself.

Probe Seen as a Defence, Not an Attack

Alongside its warning, the Forum put forward a concrete demand: an investigation into the judges who are under suspicion. The statement made clear that the Forum sees such a probe not as an assault on the judiciary but as the necessary means of defending it.

The reasoning is straightforward. If judges are under suspicion and nothing is done, the suspicion lingers and spreads, tarnishing the entire institution. If the concerns are instead examined through a proper process, wrongdoing can be established and addressed where it exists, and unfounded suspicion can be laid to rest where it does not. Either outcome serves the credibility of the judiciary. Only inaction serves the cloud of doubt.

Attention Now Turns to the Bodies Concerned

The press release was addressed, in effect, to the bodies concerned, which the Forum urged to pay attention to the situation. What follows now depends on how those institutions respond to the intervention. The statement adds a credible and experienced voice to the concerns circulating over the conduct of judges and the role of judicial leadership, and a call of this kind from within the judicial community is not easily dismissed. The Forum's demand for an investigation now stands on the record as a formal appeal rather than a passing remark.

For the moment, the Forum's message is unambiguous. The disputes within the judiciary must be confronted, the judges under suspicion must face a proper investigation, and the independence, impartiality, neutrality and dignity of the institution must be safeguarded. As the Nagarik News report makes clear, whether the concerned bodies act on that appeal, and how quickly they do so, will shape how this episode is judged both inside the judiciary and by the public it serves.