5 legal figures who defined 2025 (and why they matter)

Amid growing concerns, the Delhi High Court withdrew his judicial work on March 22, an unusual administrative step. Soon after, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended his transfer to the Allahabad High Court, his parent court. In April, the Supreme Court initiated an in-house inquiry by a three-member committee to examine issues of access, control and responsibility for the premises where the cash was found.

By May, the inquiry committee submitted its report to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), who forwarded the matter to the President of India — a rare constitutional step that can precede removal proceedings against a sitting high court judge. Justice Varma challenged the inquiry process before the court and refused to resign.

In July, impeachment notices backed by members of both Houses of the Parliament were submitted, leading to the constitution of a parliamentary committee that later recorded a prima facie finding of culpability. On August 7, the apex court dismissed Justice Varma’s petitions challenging the in-house inquiry and the CJI’s recommendation for his removal.

Throughout the year, he continued to serve as a judge of the Allahabad High Court, even as his case sparked sustained debate on judicial accountability, transparency and institutional integrity.

What next

With the Supreme Court having upheld the in-house inquiry and the Chief Justice’s actions, the process now rests largely in the constitutional and parliamentary domain. The President’s reference and the parliamentary committee’s findings could pave the way for formal impeachment proceedings under Articles 124(4) and 217 of the Constitution.

Justice Varma remains in office for now, but under unprecedented scrutiny. The coming months will determine whether the Parliament moves forward with removal proceedings or whether the matter concludes without further constitutional action, a decision that could have lasting implications for how allegations against judges are handled in India’s judicial system.

2) Justice D Y Chandrachud

The former CJI stayed in the spotlight in 2025 over post-retirement controversies, public remarks and academic roles, reigniting debate on judicial optics and independence. (Image enhanced using AI)

Why

Former Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, who retired in November 2024, remained in the public eye throughout 2025 due to a mix of post-retirement controversies, public remarks and academic engagements.

A recurring flashpoint was Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Chandrachud’s official residence in September 2024 for Ganesh Puja, which continued to draw criticism in 2025. Opposition leaders and legal commentators questioned the optics of close social interaction between the executive and the judiciary. He responded in interviews and public forums, rejecting allegations of impropriety and insisting that such interactions did not compromise judicial independence.

In mid-2025, he again made headlines after it emerged that he continued to occupy the Chief Justice’s official bungalow at 5, Krishna Menon Marg months after retirement. On July 1, the Supreme Court administration asked the Union housing ministry to reclaim the residence. Chandrachud said the delay was due to difficulties in finding suitable accommodation for his two daughters with special needs. He vacated the bungalow by August, bringing the issue to a close.

Chandrachud also remained visible through academia. In May, he was appointed “distinguished professor” at the National Law University, Delhi, where he announced plans to set up a “Centre for Constitutional Studies” and lead lectures on constitutional governance.

Several of his public statements during the year drew attention. He defended the judiciary against claims of executive pressure, argued that independence should be judged by institutional outcomes rather than optics, and rejected allegations of judicial elitism and nepotism.

In September, his remarks describing the historical construction of the Babri Masjid as a “fundamental act of desecration” reignited debate, given his role in the 2019 Ayodhya verdict, with critics questioning whether retired judges should revisit issues they once adjudicated.

What Next

In the near term, Chandrachud is expected to focus on academia, writing and mentoring, with the NLU Delhi as his primary platform. Legal observers anticipate books and essays reflecting on constitutional interpretation, judicial independence and democracy.

At the same time, his sustained public engagement has revived debate on the role and limits of post-retirement speech by former judges. Whether he adopts a more restrained academic role or continues to intervene actively in public discourse will shape assessments of his post-CJI legacy.

For now, he remains one of the most visible former chief justices, with his words and actions continuing to influence national conversations well beyond his time on the bench.

3) Justice G R Swaminathan

The Madras High Court judge came under national spotlight in 2025 after opposition MPs moved impeachment over alleged bias and controversial orders. (Image enhanced using AI)

Why

Madras High Court judge Justice Ganesan Raghunath Swaminathan came under intense national focus in the year after opposition parties initiated a rare impeachment motion against him. On December 9, more than 100 MPs from the INDIA bloc, led by the DMK, submitted a notice to the Lok Sabha Speaker, accusing the judge of misconduct, lack of impartiality and communal bias in his rulings.

The opposition said concerns had been flagged earlier in a 13-point representation dated August 12, sent to the President of India and the Chief Justice of India, alleging a pattern of controversial orders and courtroom observations. With no action forthcoming, they said impeachment was the only option left.

The immediate trigger was a court order in early December relating to Thiruparankundram hill near Madurai, a sensitive site housing both a 6th-century Hindu temple and a 14th-century Muslim dargah.

Justice Swaminathan’s bench permitted a small group of Hindu devotees to light the Karthigai Deepam on the Deepathoon pillar by December 4. The Tamil Nadu government objected, citing law-and-order concerns, and declined to implement the order, triggering protests and political backlash.

Further controversy followed his verdict on the Bhagavad Gita, where he observed that it should be viewed not merely as a religious text but as a work of moral and ethical philosophy. While supporters described the remarks as philosophical, critics argued that references to religious texts from the bench raised concerns in a secular constitutional framework.

In July, the judge also drew attention after advocate S Vanchinathan accused him of caste bias. Justice Swaminathan rejected the allegation as baseless and summoned the lawyer to court; the matter was later referred to the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court.

Several of his rulings during the year, including those involving community use of public spaces, social customs and family law also drew debate and criticism from other benches, keeping him in the public eye through much of 2025.

What Next

The impeachment notice marks only the start of a lengthy constitutional process. For Justice Swaminathan to be removed, the motion must be admitted, probed by an inquiry committee, and passed by both Houses of the Parliament with a special majority, a threshold that is rarely met.

The move has triggered sharp reactions. The Centre has termed it politically motivated, while 56 former judges have defended Justice Swaminathan, warning that impeachment based on disagreement with judicial decisions could undermine judicial independence.

As the process unfolds, the episode has sparked a wider debate on judicial accountability, limits of courtroom observations, and the balance between independence and oversight. Regardless of the outcome, the year marked one of the most contentious phases of Justice Swaminathan’s judicial career.

4) Former CJI BR Gavai

Justice BR Gavai, the 52nd Chief Justice of India, remained a judicial newsmaker in 2025 for his historic elevation and high-profile moments on the Supreme Court bench.

Why

Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai assumed office as the 52nd Chief Justice of India on May 14, marking a historic moment as the first Buddhist and only the second person from the Scheduled Castes to hold the country’s highest judicial post. His elevation drew wide attention for its symbolic importance in advancing inclusivity within the judiciary.

The most notable ruling given by the bench he headed in the Aravalli case continues to be a subject of debate. The ruling accepted the government recommendations to clarify forest classifications in the Aravalli region, citing regulatory consistency and legal certainty.

The ruling, seen as easing restrictions on parts of the Aravalli belt in Haryana and Rajasthan, triggered a sharp political and environmental uproar, with critics warning it could enable mining and construction in ecologically sensitive areas. Gavai’s pointed remarks on governance lapses ensured the judgment resonated far beyond the courtroom.

During his tenure, which lasted until November 23, 2025, he led the Supreme Court collegium in recommending a large number of judicial appointments, with a notable emphasis on candidates from Scheduled Castes, OBCs, minority communities and women, signalling a push for broader representation on the bench.

The former CJI came under sharp national focus on October 6, when a 71-year-old lawyer attempted to throw a shoe at him inside the Supreme Court while shouting religious slogans. The incident, which was foiled by security, triggered widespread condemnation and led to multiple FIRs against individuals posting casteist and hateful content online.

He described the episode as “shocking” but urged that it not distract the institution, while his colleague Justice Ujjal Bhuyan called it an affront to the Supreme Court.

The attack followed criticism from some religious groups over remarks made by the former CJI in September, when he dismissed a plea related to the reconstruction of a damaged idol at the Khajuraho temple complex, calling it “publicity interest litigation” and advising petitioners to seek spiritual, not legal, remedies. He later clarified that he respected all religions.

Earlier, in July, Justice Gavai called for urgent legal reforms at a law convocation and encouraged young lawyers to broaden their perspectives, including through international exposure.

Even after retiring, he remained in the public eye, speaking candidly in media interviews about judicial independence, institutional reform, and constitutional supremacy. He also drew attention for declining any post-retirement government role, saying he intended to focus on social work.

What Next

Though no longer in office, Justice Gavai continues to influence debates on judicial independence and institutional reform. The October courtroom incident has intensified discussions on court security, respect for judicial institutions, and professional conduct within the legal fraternity.

Judges appointed or recommended during his tenure are expected to shape the judiciary for years, particularly given the emphasis on diversity and representation. His remarks and rulings are also likely to remain part of wider conversations on how courts engage with religious, cultural and social issues amid growing public and media scrutiny.

5) Senior advocate Kapil Sibal

The senior advocate and MP stayed in focus as a sharp constitutional critic, challenging government moves on elections, judicial independence and civil liberties. (Image enhanced using AI)

Why

Designated senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal remained in the spotlight through 2025 as one of the most outspoken voices on elections, judicial independence, parliamentary functioning and civil liberties. His visibility stemmed from a mix of high-profile court appearances, sharp criticism of the government, and sustained public commentary on constitutional institutions.

In July, during the Bihar assembly elections, Sibal attacked the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, calling it unconstitutional and warning that mass deletions could disenfranchise voters.

In March, he criticised remarks by Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar seen as undermining the Supreme Court, calling them an intrusion into the constitutional balance. Around the same time, he opposed proposed laws seeking automatic disqualification of elected representatives upon arrest, arguing they violated constitutional morality.

Judicial independence became a major theme in June, when Sibal criticised the Centre’s move against Justice Yashwant Varma, warning that targeting a sitting judge without due constitutional process amounted to attacking the judiciary itself.

Sibal also spoke frequently on democratic functioning. On December 15, he warned that Parliament was “losing relevance” due to limited debate.

In court, Sibal remained involved in sensitive cases. In September, he criticised the Delhi High Court’s rejection of bail to Umar Khalid, calling it unjust and announcing a move to the Supreme Court.

During hearings in July, he defended Justice Varma before the apex court and argued that a judge’s conduct should not be publicly debated without an impeachment motion. That same month, his argument that the state — not individuals — must prove illegal citizenship during voter roll verification sparked political and social media backlash.

Sibal had returned to head the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and remained in the position until May this year. This was his third stint as the SCBA president, having earlier held the post from 1995 to 1998 and 2001 to 2002.

Within opposition politics, Sibal urged greater coordination among INDIA bloc parties after election setbacks in April, and called for a special parliamentary session after the Pahalgam terror attack, emphasising national unity.

Adding to his prominence was his growing digital outreach. Through his personal video channel “Dil Se with Kapil Sibal”, which became more active in the year, he directly addressed constitutional issues, court rulings and political developments, extending his influence beyond Parliament and courtrooms.

What Next

Sibal is expected to remain a key figure in both courtrooms and public discourse in the new year. His positions on electoral law, judicial independence and civil liberties are likely to resurface in major constitutional cases.

In Parliament, he is expected to continue using the Rajya Sabha to question the functioning of democratic institutions, particularly the Election Commission and the executive’s role in judicial matters. At the same time, his expanding use of “Dil Se with Kapil Sibal” points to deeper direct engagement with the public.

Together, Sibal’s dual role as a senior lawyer and public intellectual suggests he will continue to shape debates on democracy, institutional balance and the rule of law in 2026 and further.