SC judges under siege? Sibal’s SCBA sends chilling signal with Trivedi snub

New Delhi: What began as an unusual absence of tradition has now raised red flags about a deeper rot – the increasing grip of elite bar lobbies on the functioning and morale of the Supreme Court. 

On May 16, when the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) denied a ceremonial farewell to Justice Bela M. Trivedi, the silence spoke louder than any dissenting judgment.

Even as SCBA President Kapil Sibal sat on the dais during the courtroom farewell, his association’s deliberate decision to boycott the customary function was a message, and one that echoes dangerously through the halls of India’s highest judiciary.

Not a snub, but a signal

Traditionally, SCBA and SCAORA host formal send-offs to retiring Supreme Court judges, a dignified closure recognising years of public service. 

But this time, Justice Trivedi, the 11th woman judge of the apex court, was given no such honour. Why? Because she upheld the law without fear or favour, including in cases that affected influential members of the very Bar that snubbed her.

CJI B R Gavai, did not mince words. In open court, he said, “I must deprecate openly… The Association ought not to have taken such a stand.” 

Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra followed with a sharply worded letter calling the denial of farewell a blow to “institutional values” and “a diminishment of the very principles of equity and fairness.”

Yet, this was not merely a breach of decorum. It was a warning shot: Deliver rulings unpalatable to us, and we will erase you from tradition.

To understand the underlying reasons for this public snub, one must revisit Justice Trivedi’s judicial trail.

Justice Trivedi’s ruling that exposed a forged Special Leave Petition filed with a fake vakalatnama and attested by a notary rattled the SC Bar like few decisions before. She directed a CBI probe, refused to dilute her observations, and said plainly: “This kind of culture, I had not seen in 30 years.”

Kapil Sibal, as SCBA President, personally opposed her order, terming it “unprecedented” and urging that it not bias the CBI investigation. Her refusal to entertain these concerns marked a rare moment of institutional pushback. 

While upholding the 10% EWS quota, Justice Trivedi went further to say it was time to “revisit” the reservation system and consider time limits. This resonated with right-leaning policy thinkers but was deeply unpopular with many bar leaders who champion caste-based affirmative action.

Additionally, she has been involved in several politically sensitive cases, including those related to the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and the denial of bail to AAP leader Satyendar Jain in a money laundering case .

If Justice Bela Trivedi’s farewell snub was an isolated case, it could be ignored as pique. But it reflects a systemic trend. Over the past few years, powerful sections of the SC Bar have increasingly sought to steer the institutional culture of the Court through extra-judicial tactics such as press conferences, veiled threats, and now ceremonial boycotts.

It’s a disturbing inversion: judges are appointed to deliver the law, but their standing is being policed by lawyers with political leanings.

This raises a chilling question: Are Supreme Court judges being silently coerced into towing activist lines, lest their exits be humiliated?

Even worse, this emboldens a whisper campaign that those who uphold PMLA, UAPA, or refuse to shield errant lawyers will be shunned, while those soft on opposition causes will be celebrated.

The greatest casualty here is not Justice Trivedi’s farewell. It is judicial independence.

A farewell is not a mere bouquet-and-tea function. It is a symbolic reinforcement of the institution’s unity, even in disagreement. By withdrawing that gesture, the SCBA under Kapil Sibal has turned what should be a closing tribute into a tool of ideological censorship.

Justice Trivedi may have left without a function. But her rulings, spine, and institutional courage will be remembered longer than any muted applause in a lawyers' hall.