In a powerful and forthright address, former Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay S Oka has emphatically reaffirmed the Constitution of India as the sole and supreme guide for the nation's judiciary. Speaking at a recent Idea Exchange session in New Delhi on December 29, 2025, Justice Oka dismissed any notion of external or 'divine' intervention in legal decision-making, stressing that judges are bound solely by the rule of law.
The Constitution as the Supreme and Sole Guide
Justice Oka, who served with distinction on the apex court bench, left no room for ambiguity regarding the source of judicial authority. He stated that judges have "taken oath under the Constitution" and are duty-bound to decide cases strictly in accordance with it and the law. Addressing the metaphor of 'divine or bovine' guidance, he clarified that the complex process of adjudication involves deep research and careful thought, often leading to numerous drafts of a judgment before finalisation.
"The Constitution, the law, the concept of law and our experience as judges and members of the legal fraternity are our only guidance and source for writing judgments. I don't think there can be any other source," Justice Oka declared. He underscored that the meticulous formulation of a verdict, which can involve 15-16 drafts or more, is a testament to this rigorous, law-bound process, not any external influence.
On Development, Environment, and the Unbreakable Rule of Law
When questioned on the perennial conflict between development projects and environmental protection, Justice Oka offered a principle-based response rooted in constitutional mandate. He pointed to the fundamental right to a pollution-free atmosphere and the state's duty under Article 48A to protect the environment.
His position was unequivocal: "When there is an action by the executive or government, it has to stand the test of law... You can't say that just because you want to do so-called development, we will bypass or breach the law. Every action of every authority has to be in terms of law." He asserted that environmental laws, with their constitutional underpinning, provide a clear framework, leaving no room for a genuine conflict where development can override legal compliance.
Gender Sensitivity and the Changing Face of the Judiciary
Justice Oka also addressed critical issues within the judicial system, including gender-insensitive language in some court orders and the broader representation of women. He acknowledged that some judgments, particularly in sensitive cases like those under the POCSO Act, have lacked desired sensitivity, attributing this partly to a judge's upbringing.
However, he highlighted systemic efforts to address this through rigorous training at state and national judicial academies, even for newly appointed High Court judges. He noted the Supreme Court's publication of a booklet on ideal judicial language as a positive step forward.
On representation, Justice Oka shared an encouraging trend: in the last five to six years, over 50% of newly appointed civil judges (aged 26-27) across most states have been women. He described this as a "big change" over the past decade. Observing the increasing number of women excelling in law schools and moot courts, he expressed confidence that "it's a matter of time that things will change" at higher judicial levels as well.
Provocative Advice for Lawyers and Call of Duty
One of the most striking parts of his discussion was his advice to the legal fraternity on judicial appointments. Justice Oka suggested that the best judges are often those who do not actively aspire to the bench but see it as a 'call of duty' after a successful career at the bar.
"As a lawyer, you should not aspire to become a judge. Your job should be to do your best as a lawyer because you know if you have ambition, then sometimes you tend to compromise," he cautioned. He illustrated that ambition might deter a lawyer from strongly countering a judge's view during arguments.
Instead, he framed judgeship as an honour to be accepted when called upon by senior members of the judiciary. "It's not about aspiring, but accepting that great honour when it came someone's way," he concluded, emphasising service over ambition.
Justice Oka's candid reflections provide a rare glimpse into the judicial philosophy that prioritises constitutional fidelity above all else, while also engaging with the pressing reforms needed in environmental jurisprudence, gender parity, and the very ethos of judicial service.
