The Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP), through a resolution passed on April 5, 2026, has expressed strong concern over retired judges of Indian constitutional courts appearing as expert witnesses before foreign courts in matters involving fugitives from Indian justice. The body termed the trend “deeply disquieting,” asserting that such engagements risk undermining the credibility of India’s judicial system and its sovereign legal positions.
Citing specific instances, the Parishad referred to the appearances of Justice Deepak Verma in multiple foreign proceedings, including the Vijay Mallya bankruptcy case, the Sanjay Bhandari matter (2025), and Nirav Deepak Modi v. Government of India [2026] EWHC 716 (Admin). It noted that in the latter, Justice Verma characterised India’s sovereign assurances as “a diplomatic promise rather than a legally enforceable formal assurance,” a position which, if accepted, could have adversely impacted India’s extradition efforts.
The resolution further highlighted the role of Justice Markandey Katju, who appeared before the Westminster Magistrates’ Court in 2021 in proceedings concerning Nirav Modi. The UK court reportedly found his testimony to be “less than objective and reliable,” observing that it bore “the hallmarks of an outspoken critic with a personal agenda,” and described his conduct of briefing journalists prior to testifying as “astonishing” for a former judge of such stature.
Similarly, Justice Abhay Thipsay was noted to have appeared in the same proceedings, where the court attached “no weight” to his evidence. In Bhandari v. Government of India [2025] EWHC 449 (Admin), he was further described as having acted “as an advocate for the defendant rather than an independent expert.” The Parishad also referred to the appearance of Late Justice Pana Chand Jain in proceedings relating to Vijay Mallya in 2019.
Criticising such conduct, the Parishad highlighted what it termed the “irony” of former judges, who continue to draw pensions from the Consolidated Fund of India, assisting individuals accused of defrauding Indian institutions. It stated that the named judges had, in its view, forfeited their moral entitlement to the privileges and designations associated with their former constitutional offices. At the same time, it clarified that such actions cannot be attributed to retired judges as a class, acknowledging that many former judges have exercised restraint and avoided engagements that may conflict with judicial propriety.
In response, ABAP has called for the enactment of a “Judicial Officers (Post-Retirement Conduct and Accountability) Act.” Among its key proposals are mandatory disclosure of post-retirement engagements in matters of public significance, particularly cross-border disputes; a complete prohibition on former constitutional court judges testifying in foreign proceedings adverse to India’s sovereign interests; and stringent consequences for violations, including forfeiture of pension and retiral benefits.
The proposed framework also includes withdrawal of the right to use the title “Justice” upon breach, and the establishment of a Parliamentary Oversight Committee vested with powers of inquiry and adjudication. Additionally, the Parishad has urged the Union Government to constitute a committee to prepare a draft bill within sixty days for consideration by the Minister of Law and Justice and Parliament.
Concluding on a note of institutional concern, the Parishad stated that the legal fraternity cannot remain silent where the actions of former judges may be perceived as acting against national interests, while emphasising that its criticism is tempered by a commitment to maintaining the dignity of the judiciary.
AKHIL BHARATIYA ADHIVAKTA PARISHAD Click here